MY APOLOGIES. [00:00:04] I'LL CALL OUR COUNCIL MEETING FOR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8TH, 2021 TO ORDER AND I [1. Councillor Morgan will read the Opening Statement] WOULD JUST LIKE TO BEGIN WITH SOME ETIQUETTE FOR THOSE WHO ARE JOINING. THE CHAT FUNCTION ISN'T BE USED TO CHAT, IT'S JUST FOR COUNCILLORS TO PUT UP THEIR QUOTE UNQUOTE HAND TO DISCUSS. SO JUST MAKING SURE THAT FOLKS KEEP THEIR MICS OFF AS WELL, UNTIL YOU'RE CALLED ON AND THEN YOU CAN UNMUTE YOURSELF. OH, WITH THAT, COUNCILLOR MORGAN, IF YOU'D LIKE TO READ THE OPENING STATEMENT, PLEASE. THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT WE ARE LOCATED IN CHIEF DRYGEESE TERRITORY. FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL, IT HAS BEEN THE TRADITIONAL LAND OF THE YELLOWKNIVES DENE FIRST NATION. WE RESPECT THE HISTORIES, LANGUAGES AND CULTURES OF ALL OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, INCLUDING THE NORTH SLAVE METIS AND ALL FIRST NATIONS AND INUIT, WHOSE PRESENCE CONTINUES TO ENRICH OUR VIBRANT COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. THERE WERE NO AWARD CEREMONIES OR PRESENTATIONS FOR THE AGENDA. MINUTES OF COUNCIL FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF MONDAY, OCTOBER 25TH, 2021. [Items 3 & 4] COUNCILLOR MORGAN. I MOVE THAT MINUTES OF COUNCILLOR FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF MONDAY, OCTOBER 25TH, 2021, BE PRESENTED FOR ADOPTION. THANK YOU TO HAVE A SECONDER? COUNCILLOR MORSE. ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. COUNCILLOR KONGE, ARE YOU IN FAVOR? HE'S GOING TO BE FROZEN. OK, COUNCILLOR KONGE IS ALSO IN FAVOR, BUT HE'S FROZEN, SO THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. [5. Does any Member have a pecuniary interest in any matter before Council tonight?] NEXT, WE HAVE DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST IN THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF. SO, COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. YEAH, I'D LIKE TO DECLARE FOR ITEM NUMBER 16 ON TODAY'S AGENDA. AS MY WIFE IS CURRENTLY EMPLOYED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF LANDS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DOES ANY MEMBER HAVE A PECUNIARY INTEREST IN ANY MATTER BEFORE COUNCIL? THIS IS TOUGH. THIS IS THE START OF THE MEETING. SEEING NONE. THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDENCE, NOR WERE THERE ANY PETITIONS FOR THE AGENDA. THERE WERE NO STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARINGS TO THE AGENDA AND WE DO HAVE DELEGATIONS PERTAINING TO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. SO I WILL PUT THE SPEAKER'S ORDER IN THE CHAT JUST SO FOLKS ARE AWARE. SO FIRST UP, WE HAVE ZB AND I WILL READ THE RULES. [DELEGATIONS PERTAINING TO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA] AS FOR COUNCIL PROCEDURES BYLAW. SO FOUR DELEGATIONS BEFORE COUNCIL, ALL DELEGATIONS, SO PRESENTERS SHALL ADDRESS THE REMARKS DIRECTLY TO MYSELF, THE PRESIDING OFFICER, AND SHALL NOT POSE QUESTIONS TO INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OR ADMINISTRATION OR DEVIATE FROM THE TOPIC OF THEIR PRESENTATION. EACH PRESENTER SHALL BE AWARDED FIVE MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION. THE TIME ALLOWED FOR EACH PRESENTER MAY BE EXTENDED UP TO TWO MINUTES BY A SPECIAL RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL. AFTER A PERSON HAS SPOKEN ANY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY, THROUGH MYSELF, ASK THAT PERSON OR CITY MANAGER RELEVANT QUESTIONS AND NO DEBATE SHALL BE PERMITTED ON ANY DELEGATION TO COUNCIL, EITHER BETWEEN MEMBERS OR WITH AN INDIVIDUAL MAKING A DELEGATION. WHEN MAKING A PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL, NO PERSON SHALL ONE SPEAK DISRESPECTFULLY OF THE CROWN, ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL, THE PUBLIC OR AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY TO USE OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE. THREE, MAKE PERSONAL REMARKS ABOUT ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL, THE PUBLIC OR AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY, FOUR, REFLECT UPON THE MOTIVES OF MEMBERS WHO MAY HAVE VOTED FOR A PARTICULAR MOTION. FIVE, REFLECT UPON THE MOTIVES OF ADVICE GIVEN TO COUNCIL BY CITY STAFF, OR SIX REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH THE DECISION OF MYSELF, THE PRESIDING OFFICER, REGARDING ANY INTERPRETATION OF THIS BYLAW. SO WITH THAT ZB. HAVE YOU BEEN MADE PRESENTER? I DON'T [INAUDIBLE]. OK, I [INAUDIBLE]. I'M HITTING THE SHARE SCREEN BUTTON, BUT IT'S NOT WORKING FOR ME. YOU WANT TO TRY AGAIN? I THINK IT MIGHT BE A SYSTEM PREFERENCES THING, I APOLOGIZE IT'S. .. IF YOU'LL BEAR WITH ME. [00:05:06] HAS MY TIME STARTED? IT WILL START SHORTLY, SO. OK. I'M GOING TO SEND YOU THE POWERPOINT AFTERWARDS IF YOU GET A CHANCE TO. THAT'D BE GREAT. OK, THANKS VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME THIS TIME AND THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ALL THE PRESENTERS AND THEIR PERSPECTIVES TONIGHT. MY NAME IS DAVID LEAVITT. I HAVE LIVED IN THE N.W.T. FOR 25 YEARS NOW AND HAVE RAISED MY THREE CHILDREN IN THIS COMMUNITY. AS WE ALL HAVE, I'VE SEEN SADNESS, FRUSTRATION, ANGER, BUT MOSTLY BOREDOM FROM OUR CHILDREN. OUR KIDS HAVE MISSED ARCTIC WINTER GAMES CANADA SUMMER GAMES, PLAYS, MUSICALS, GRADUATIONS. MY GRADE 12 SON HAS NOT SEEN A SINGLE YEAR OF HIS GRADES 10 TO 12 HIGH SCHOOL IN NORMALITY. AND ON JANUARY 27TH OF THIS YEAR, WE LOST MY FATHER, THEIR GRANDFATHER. HE DIED OF COVID PNEUMONIA. AFTER THE VIRUS FIRST APPEARED, HE SPENT A YEAR SITTING AT HOME WITH HIS WIFE, PROTECTING THE TWO OF THEM. BUT WHEN HE HAD TO GO TO THE HOSPITAL ONE TIME FOR ANOTHER CONDITION, HE CAUGHT COVID AT THE HOSPITAL AND FOUR DAYS LATER HE WAS DEAD. HIS WIFE ALSO CONTRACTED COVID AND SPENT ABOUT EIGHT DAYS IN THE HOSPITAL IN AN OXYGEN CHAMBER STRUGGLING TO BREATHE. THAT WAS FEBRUARY. SHE IS ONLY NOW JUST RECOVERED PHYSICALLY. THEY BOTH GOT SICK BEFORE A VACCINE WAS AVAILABLE. ACROSS THE WORLD, WE ARE RECOGNIZING THAT HARD POLICY DECISIONS HAVE TO BE MADE TO PROTECT OUR SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. TODAY YOU ARE ASKING SHOULD WE ALLOW FOR CONTINUED USE OF OUR FACILITIES FOR ALL VACCINATED OR NOT AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, KEEP OUR PUBLIC FACILITIES TO LOWER CAPACITY RATES LIMITS? OR DO WE IMPLEMENT A POLICY THAT WILL OPEN FACILITIES TO MUCH LARGER NUMBERS, BUT AS A RESULT, AND A CONSEQUENCE RESTRICT ONLY TO THOSE WHO ARE ELIGIBLE AND RECEIVE VACCINATION ? THIS IS A NO WIN SITUATION, BUT I'M ASKING YOU TO DO THE SECOND IMPLEMENT A VACCINE REQUIREMENT AND THIS IS WHY. WE KNOW THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VACCINES, NOT JUST FOR THOSE THAT TAKE IT, BUT FOR EVERYONE AROUND THEM. ON OCTOBER THE 21ST, 2021, JUST RECENTLY, THE ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY GROUP SAID STUDIES SO FAR SHOW THAT COVID 19 VACCINATION REDUCES THE RISK OF THE VACCINATED PERSON SPREADING COVID 19 BY PREVENTING INFECTION IN MOST BUT NOT ALL RECIPIENTS. AND IF THEY TEST POSITIVE, THEY SEEM TO BE LESS LIKELY TO SPREAD INFECTION TO THEIR CLOSE CONTACTS. NATIONAL, INTERNATIONAL, REGIONAL AND LOCAL HEALTH AUTHORITIES ACROSS THE WORLD ARE SUPPORTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VACCINE AND IMPLEMENTING POLICIES TO PROMOTE AND SUPPORT VACCINES. LEADING SOCIETY IS ABOUT MAKING THE BEST POLICY DECISIONS THAT WILL PROTECT THE COMMUNITY AND SOCIETY AS A WHOLE, ESPECIALLY THE MOST VULNERABLE MEMBERS OF THAT COMMUNITY. THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE TO MAKE MEASURES TO PROTECT THEMSELVES, CHOOSING NOT TO BE VACCINATED DOES NOT MAKE YOU A PART OF A VULNERABLE SOCIETY. IT IS A PERSONAL CHOICE, AND EVERY PERSONAL CHOICE COMES WITH ITS OWN CONSEQUENCES, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOUR CHOICES CAN HAVE SIGNIFICANT HEALTH CONSEQUENCES ON OTHERS. AS OF LAST THURSDAY, 84 PERCENT OF THE RESIDENTS OF YELLOWKNIFE [INAUDIBLE] DATA ARE VACCINATED. LET'S LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. IF WE OPEN UP TO ALL AND KEEP EVERYBODY ABLE TO ACCESS VACCINATED OR NOT, THAT MEANS THERE MAY BE FOUR OR MORE PEOPLE OUT OF THE TOTAL 25, IF WE ASSUME 16 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE GOING, WILL NOT BE VACCINATED. FOUR OUT OF 25 CAN GO INTO CITY PREMISES BECAUSE THE CHOICE WAS TO LEAVE IT OPEN TO ALL. IF YOU CHOOSE TO IMPLEMENT A VACCINATION POLICY, THAT MEANS 75 MORE PEOPLE FOR EVERY SINGLE SWIMMING SESSION EVERY TIME THE PUBLIC LIBRARIES OPEN CAN ATTEND THOSE THOSE PLACES. NO ONE SAID THESE CHOICES ARE EASY AND EVERYONE WOULD BE HAPPY. BUT I ASK YOU IF YOUR CONCERN IS MAXIMIZING MAXIMIZING ACCESS. JUST LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. [00:10:02] OPENING OPPORTUNITIES BASED ON VACCINATION STATUS IS THE NEW NORMAL IN TERMS OF ACCESS, AT LEAST FOR NOW AND MAYBE IN THE FUTURE, THAT WILL CHANGE. BUT RIGHT NOW, THIS IS OUR REALITY. MY FATHER WAS A BEATNIK OF THE 50S IN MONTREAL, A HIPPIE OF 1960S IN LONDON. HE WAS GENERALLY ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT AND HAD A PROFOUND MISTRUST OF THE MAN IN CHARGE AND STUCK UP FOR THE UNDERPRIVILEGED AND OPPRESSED WHENEVER HE FELT SOMETHING WAS UNJUST OR NOT EQUAL. BUT HE WAS NOT SUPPORTIVE OF POLICIES THAT DIDN'T FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF GOOD SCIENCE AND ACCEPTED HEALTH POLICY THAT DIDN'T ENCOURAGE STEPS TO BEST PROTECT HIS GRANDCHILDREN, THEIR FRIENDS AND FAMILIES. YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST TO CONSIDER THIS, AND YOU CERTAINLY WON'T BE THE LAST. BUT AS A FATHER, AS A GRIEVING SON AND AS A PART OF THIS COMMUNITY, I ASK YOU TO TAKE THE MEASURES YOU NEED TO THAT WILL BEST PROTECT US COLLECTIVELY AND OPEN FACILITY DOORS TO AS MANY AS WE CAN. THIS IS NOT DISCRIMINATION. IT IS A SOLID AND RECOGNIZED PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY, AS EVIDENCED BY DECISION MAKERS ACROSS THE WORLD. THIS WILL END, AND ONE DAY WE WILL ALL BE ABLE TO GATHER AGAIN NORMALLY. BUT WE HAVE TO MAKE HARD CHOICES TO GET THERE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU AND SORRY TO HEAR OF YOUR LOSS, [INAUDIBLE]. [INAUDIBLE] IF YOU WILL, WE JUST OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? SEEING NONE. THANK YOU AGAIN, [INAUDIBLE], FOR COMING AND PRESENTING TONIGHT, AND IF YOU WOULD, YOU CAN EMAIL YOUR PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL AT YELLOWKNIFE.CA AND THEN WE CAN REVIEW IT THAT WAY. THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR LISTENING. THANK YOU. NEXT ON MY LIST, I HAVE JASON CARD, HOWEVER, I DO NOT SEE HIM IN THE LIST OF. PARTICIPANTS. SO FOLLOWING THAT IS COLLEEN, WHO I DO SEE IS HERE. COLLEEN, IF YOU'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD. YOU HEARD THE PREAMBLE OF FIVE MINUTES SPEAKING, RESPECTFULLY? PERFECT, I'LL TURN THE FLOOR OVER TO YOU. ALL RIGHT, CAN YOU HEAR ME ALL RIGHT? GREAT. ALL RIGHT. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME, EVERYONE, AND FOR LISTENING. I JUST WANTED TO SAY MY NAME IS COLLEEN [INAUDIBLE]. I'VE LIVED IN YELLOWKNIFE FOR OVER SEVEN YEARS. I WORK IN THE CITY AND I'M RAISING A FAMILY HERE WITH MY HUSBAND. I CONSIDER MYSELF ENGAGED ON THE ISSUES AFFECTING OUR CITY AND THE DISCUSSIONS OF THIS COUNCIL. HOWEVER, UNTIL TODAY, I'VE NEVER FELT COMPELLED TO PARTICIPATE IN CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. THAT'S BECAUSE I WAS DISAPPOINTED TO LEARN THAT THE QUESTION OF MANDATORY VACCINE POLICIES WAS EVEN UP FOR DEBATE. IT SEEMS THAT DESPITE OVERWHELMING MEDICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING MANDATORY VACCINATION, SOME COUNCILLORS ARE STILL QUESTIONING THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO KEEP OUR COMMUNITY SAFE FROM THE IMPACTS OF THE PANDEMIC. NO ONE IS QUESTIONING THAT PEOPLE ARE FREE TO MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES ABOUT THEIR PERSONAL HEALTH, BUT THIS QUESTION ISN'T ABOUT PERSONAL FREEDOM, IT'S ABOUT PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE MEASURES WE NEED TO PUT IN PLACE TO PREVENT FUTURE LOCKDOWNS AND LIMIT THE SPREAD OF COVID 19. AS A MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT MEANT TO ENSURE SERVICES FOR EVERYONE, A MANDATORY VACCINATION POLICY CAN BE ETHICALLY JUSTIFIED IF THE THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH IS GRAVE. IF THE CONFIDENCE IN SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS IS HIGH, IF THE EXPECTED UTILITY OF MANDATORY VACCINATION IS GREATER THAN THE ALTERNATIVES AND THE PENALTIES OR COSTS FOR NONCOMPLIANCE ARE PROPORTIONATE. BY THE CITY'S OWN ESTIMATION, OVER 80 PERCENT OF YELLOWKNIFERS ARE VACCINATED, AND DECISIONS MADE HERE SHOULD TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT INSTEAD OF PANDERING TO A VOCAL MINORITY WHOSE HESITANCY OR REFUSAL TO GET VACCINATED CONTINUES TO LIMIT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURES. IN THIS CASE, WE KNOW THAT THE THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH IS HIGH. THE N.W.T. SAW 11 DEATHS IN THE TWO MONTHS OF OUR MOST RECENT OUTBREAK. WE ALSO SAW THE STRAIN ON HEALTH CARE FACILITIES AND STAFF. ALLOWING UNVACCINATED ADULTS TO MIX AT CITY FACILITIES WITH UNVACCINATED CHILDREN IS IRRESPONSIBLE AND A SERIOUS PUBLIC HEALTH RISK. WE ALSO KNOW THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT PROTECTION AMONG FULLY VACCINATED PEOPLE. THE STATISTICS TELL US THAT THE MOST SEVERE ILLNESS AND DEATH ARE AMONG THOSE WHO ARE NOT VACCINATED. SIMILARLY, VACCINATION IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN SOCIAL DISTANCING AND MASK WEARING. IT'S ALSO NOT FEASIBLE TO SOCIALLY DISTANCE OR WEAR MASKS WHEN UTILIZING A FACILITY SUCH AS THE POOL AS FAR AS THE PENALTIES GO. [00:15:01] IF YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OF A MANDATORY VACCINE POLICY, UNVACCINATED INDIVIDUALS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO UTILIZE PUBLIC FACILITIES. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A BENEFIT THEY WILL BE DEPRIVED OF. HOWEVER, THE PENALTY FOR ME, A FULLY VACCINATED INDIVIDUAL WITH AN UNVACCINATED CHILD IS TO EITHER DEPRIVE MY CHILD OF THE ACTIVITIES I PAY FOR AS A TAXPAYER THAT HELP HER DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN HEALTHY MIND AND BODY OR RISK EXPOSING HER TO A DEADLY VIRUS. THE PENALTIES IN THIS CASE ARE NOT EQUAL. IF YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT FAIRNESS, I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER THE INEQUITY BETWEEN MY TWO YEAR OLD AND AN UNVACCINATED ADULT WHO IS FREE TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES. TO THOSE COUNCILLORS WHO VOTED AGAINST THIS POLICY, I ASK YOU TO ALSO CONSIDER THE IMPLICATIONS FOR YOUR OTHER COMMUNITIES AND AFFILIATIONS BY VOTING AGAINST THIS POLICY, YOU ARE UNDERMINING SMALL BUSINESSES WHO ARE LOOKING TO BOUNCE BACK WITH THE PROOF OF VACCINATION PROGRAM. BY VOTING AGAINST THIS POLICY, YOU'RE UNDERMINING THE WORK AND ADVICE GIVEN OUT BY OUR PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS. IF YOU ARE LEADERS WHO CARE ABOUT YOUR COMMUNITY, YOU SHOULD BE MAKING DECISIONS THAT ARE MORE THAN JUST FAIR. FAIR, DURING THE TIME OF COVID IS IRRELEVANT. EVERYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED OVER THE LAST 20 MONTHS HAS BEEN UNFAIR, BUT WE LOOK TO OUR LEADERS TO MAKE APPROPRIATE DECISIONS. THEY NEED TO BE DECISIONS THAT ARE ETHICAL BASED ON THE GREATER GOOD AND ARE BASED IN GOOD PUBLIC POLICY, POLICY, WHICH WE HAVE SEEN IMPLEMENTED ACROSS THE COUNTRY. I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE VOTE TO IMPLEMENT A MANDATORY VACCINATION POLICY FOR ALL CITY SPACES IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COLLEEN. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? SEEING NONE. NEXT UP, THANK YOU AGAIN, COLLEEN, FOR COMING TONIGHT. NEXT UP, I HAVE CATHY A. CATHY, I HAVE YOU WILL BE PRESENTING ON TWO TOPICS. SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO BEGIN WITH THE PROOF OF VACCINE ONE, FIRST, WE'LL DO FIVE MINUTES WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF A TWO MINUTE EXTENSION, DO QUESTIONS AND THEN WE CAN MOVE IT INTO THE LAND PURCHASE TOPIC, WITH AGAIN, THE SAME PARAMETERS, FIVE MINUTES AND THEN POSSIBILITY FOR A TWO MINUTE EXTENSION. SO WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO YOU. OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M A SIXTY FOUR YEAR OLD GRANDMOTHER WHO'S LIVED IN YELLOWKNIFE FOR OVER 40 YEARS. I HAVE AN HONORS DEGREE IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION. I'M A TRAINED AND CERTIFIED MEDICAL FIRST RESPONDER. ALL OF US HERE THIS EVENING ARE UNITED IN THE DESIRE TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF OURSELVES, OUR FAMILIES, OUR COMMUNITY. THAT WELL-BEING INCLUDES RECOGNIZING INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS, WHICH ARE FULLY PROTECTED WITHIN OUR LEGAL FRAMEWORK. WE'RE ALL SIFTING THROUGH A DELUGE OF DIVERGENT INFORMATION AND OPINIONS, IN WHOM DO WE PUT OUR TRUST? A REASONABLE QUESTION, BUT EXPECTING A DEFINITIVE ANSWER IS NOT SCIENTIFIC. TRUE SCIENCE INVOLVES SKEPTICISM, CRITICAL ANALYSIS, ROBUST INQUIRY, ESPECIALLY WHEN EXPLORING NEW FRONTIERS TRUST. THE SCIENCE I HEAR PEOPLE SAY THAT IS AN OXYMORON CONFLATING SCIENCE TO RELIGION HEADED BY HIGH PRIESTS WHOSE PRONOUNCEMENTS ARE NOT TO BE QUESTIONED AND DISSENTING OPINIONS CENSORED. ONE CENSORSHIP STRATEGY IS TO SLAP DEROGATORY LABELS ON THOSE WHO QUESTION THE MAINSTREAM NARRATIVE. LABELS LIKE SELFISH, ANTI-VAX, WHITE SUPREMACIST, SUPER-SPREADERS. LET'S LOOK AT A FEW IN MORE DETAIL. VACCINE HESITANT VACCINE COMPLACENT LIKE TIMID DEER PEEKING INTO THE MEADOW OR A LAZY SLOB SLOUCHED ON THE COUCH WHO CAN'T BE BOTHERED. DON'T BE FOOLED, THESE PEOPLE ARE ROARING LIONS. IN FACT, FROM HERE ON IN, I WILL REFER TO THEM AS SUCH. THESE FOLKS HAVE DONE A DEEP DOVE INTO THE CONSTITUTION, THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, THE NUREMBERG CODE. THEY KNOW THEIR RIGHTS. THE FOUNDATIONAL TENETS HAS SET THEM APART FROM COMMUNIST AND FASCIST REGIMES, AND THEY KNOW THESE RIGHTS ARE BEING ERODED UNDER THE GUISE OF KNOWING WHAT IS BEST FOR US. A COLONIAL, BY THE WAY. SELFISH, ANOTHER LABEL. MANY OF THESE ROARING LIONS HAVE SEEN THEIR FAMILIES TORN IN TWO. THEIR AT RISK LOSING JOBS, BUSINESSES QUALITY OF LIFE. THEY'RE DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT CHILDREN, YOURS AND MINE AND ARE WILLING TO PUT IT ALL ON THE LINE TO PROTECT THEM. I WOULD CALL THAT SELFLESS, MISINFORMED. EVEN CDC HAS ADMITTED THAT THE ROARING LIONS ARE FAR MORE INFORMED THAN THOSE WHO SIMPLY FOLLOW THE SHEEP AND ROLL UP THEIR SLEEVES. THE ROARING LIONS HAVE DONE A DEEP DIVE INTO THE DATA. THEY'RE SEEKING OUT THE WORLD'S BEST AND BRIGHTEST, WHICH IS NOT EASY SINCE MANY OF THE TRUE EXPERTS ARE SMEARED AND CENSORED. DESPITE IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS AND DECADES OF EXPERIENCE, MANY ROARING LIONS ARE HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS WITH FRONTLINE EXPERIENCE WHO HAVE WITNESSED TOO MUCH TO CONTINUE TO STAND IDLY BY, WHILE THE NUMBER OF SERIOUS VACCINE INDUCED INJURIES IS MOUNTING. DATA IS MANIPULATED TO PERPETUATE FEAR AND SUCCESSFUL THERAPIES THAT SAVE LIVES ARE BEING OUTLAWED. ROARING LIONS KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND GUESSWORK. THEY'RE SUSPICIOUS OF ARBITRARY NUMBERS LIKE SIX FEET. [00:20:01] SIXTY SIX TO SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT, 80 PERCENT, TWENTY FIVE OCCUPANTS, TEN PER HOUSEHOLD. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE. THIS IS NO BETTER THAN SHIFTING SAND. EVEN OUR OWN CPA, JOE ADMITS THAT THE SCIENCE IS CONSTANTLY CHANGING. FOR EXAMPLE, A NEW ORDER WAS ANNOUNCED LAST WEDNESDAY ADMITTING THAT VACCINATION DOES NOT PREVENT TRANSMISSION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING NEW ISOLATION MEASURES, DESPITE THE FACT THAT COVID NUMBERS IN THE N.W.T. ARE STEADILY DECREASING. THE FOLLOWING ANALOGY MAY UPSET SOME DELICATE SENSIBILITIES, BUT I WILL NOT APOLOGIZE FOR IT BECAUSE IT ACCURATELY REFLECTS WHAT IS HAPPENING. I AM NOT COMPARING SO-CALLED ANTI-VAXXERS TO THE JEWISH VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST. YET, I AM COMPARING OUR PRESENT POINT IN HISTORY TO THE NINETEEN THIRTIES, WHERE A SMALL NUMBER UNDERSTOOD WHERE THIS WAS HEADED AND MANY MORE OF US SWEPT ALONG WITH THE CROWD AND DID NOTHING TO STOP IT. I'VE HEARD THE PHRASE LIKE CHOICES HAVE CONSEQUENCES POINT OF ORDER, COUNCILLOR MORSE. UH, THE COMPARISON OF A VACCINE MANDATE TO THE HOLOCAUST IS JUST COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE. I CAN'T SIT HERE AND LISTEN TO IT. WE GOT TO STOP THIS SPEECH. IF I MAY RESPOND, I IN FACT DID SAY THAT I WAS NOT COMPARING IT TO THE HOLOCAUST IS WHAT I SAID, I SAID I WAS COMPARING IT TO THE 1930S. WHERE A SMALL NUMBER UNDERSTOOD WHERE IT WAS HEADED AND MANY MORE GOT SWEPT ALONG AND DID NOTHING ABOUT IT. I MADE A POINT OF SAYING, YEAH, SO JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE. .. COMPARISONS CAN BE TOUGH AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY ARE EQUIVALENT AND END AT THE SAME SCALE, SO JUST RECOGNIZING YOU DO HAVE A MINUTE AND A HALF LEFT OF THE FIVE MINUTES. OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'VE HEARD THE PHRASE CHOICES HAVE CONSEQUENCES BANTERED ABOUT AS IF ROARING LIONS ARE NAUGHTY CHILDREN CHOOSING BANISHMENT TO THEIR ROOMS OVER EATING DISTASTEFUL SUPPER. WHAT DOES IT MEAN, HOWEVER, WHEN HEALTHY PEOPLE ARE FORCED TO CHOOSE BETWEEN AN EXPERIMENTAL GENE THERAPY WORK WHICH MAY CAUSE THEM HARM OR RISK LOSING THEIR LIVELIHOODS AND QUALITY OF LIFE? THE LEGAL TERM FOR THIS IS COERCION, AND IT IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. ARE YOU READY FOR THE ROARING LIONS? ARE YOU READY FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES WHICH INCIDENTALLY, ARE STARTING TO BE WON ACROSS CANADA? ARE YOU READY FOR CITY STAFF TO BE SERVED WITH NOTICES OF LIABILITY AND DRAWN INTO CRIMINAL COURT? IN CLOSING, I IMPLORE YOU, RESPECT TO COUNCIL MEMBERS TO DO THE RIGHT THING. PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT ANY MANDATE THAT WILL SEGREGATE MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY. PLEASE ALSO SPEAK OUT AGAINST MANDATORY VACCINES FOR CITY EMPLOYEES. THIS IS WRONG. INSTEAD, I ENCOURAGE YOU, ALONG WITH THE MLA, TO ENTER INTO DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CPHO TO CONSIDER MORE REASONABLE MEASURES REGARDING SUCH THINGS AS BUILDING CAPACITIES AND GATHERING ORDERS. YOU'RE THE POLITICIANS, THEY ARE THE BUREAUCRATS. YOU MAKE THE DECISIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND I WISH YOU ALL THE BEST IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? SEEING NONE, CATHY, I'LL JUST RESTART YOUR TIME, AND IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE ISSUE OF THE LAND ACQUISITION. OK, THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] ONTO THE LAND APPLICATION. CERTAINLY, A LESSER MATTER, FIRST, BY WAY OF CLARIFICATION, DESPITE WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL BY ADMINISTRATION AT THE MEETING AND SUBSEQUENTLY ECHOED BY THE PRESS, NOWHERE IN MY APPLICATION WILL YOU FIND A REFERENCE TO BUSINESS EXPANSION. I'M RATHER LOOKING TO LEGITIMIZE WHAT I HAVE BEEN DOING ON THE SITE FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS. IN FACT, MY BUSINESS, LIKE SO MANY OTHERS IN THIS COMMUNITY, HAS TAKEN A PROFOUND HIT OVER THE PAST 20 MONTHS AND IS STRUGGLING TO STAY AFLOAT. THE MAIN CONCERN RAISED AT THE GP COMMITTEE WAS THE PRECEDENT SETTING POTENTIAL WHICH ONE HONORABLE MEMBER REFERRED TO AS A SLIPPERY SLOPE THAT BEING TO SELL LAND TO HOMEOWNERS IN ORDER TO LEGITIMIZE EXISTING ENCROACHMENTS. I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST TO COUNCIL THAT THERE IS INDEED PRECEDENT FOR THIS TYPE OF LAND DISPOSAL. BACK IN 2012, BYLAWS 4708-4711 WERE BROUGHT BEFORE COUNCIL FOR THE DISPOSITION OF A PARCEL OF ORPHANED LAND OVER BY LUNDQUIST TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. MEMBER AND COUNCIL CITED THAT SUCH A DISPOSAL WOULD BE IN KEEPING WITH COUNCIL'S GOALS FOR AFFORDABILITY, ENHANCING OUR BUILT ENVIRONMENT, BUILDING SOCIAL CAPITAL AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT, AS WELL AS BENEFITING THE CITY IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS AND IT WON, ADDING REVENUE TO THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT FUND. TWO INCREASING THE VALUE OF GENERAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS, THEREBY GENERATING ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES FOR THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND. THREE CREATING LARGER PARCELS WHICH CAN SUPPORT ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS, THEREBY LEADING TO THE HIGHER PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS AND TAX REVENUES, AND FOR ADDRESSING [00:25:01] THE ISSUE OF EXISTING ENCROACHMENTS. COUNCIL AT THE TIME, WHICH INCLUDED MS. ALTY AND MR. KONGE APPROVED THESE BYLAWS. COUNCIL LIKE THIS APPROACH SO MUCH THAT THEY DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO ACTIVELY SEEK OUT AND DISPOSE OF THESE BITS OF WORK [INAUDIBLE] THAT SERVE NO VALUE EXCEPT TO THE ADJACENT LANDOWNERS. THE FOLLOWING YEAR, THIS EXACT SAME WORDING WAS MADE IN A MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL SUPPORTING THE DISPOSAL OF LAND ADJACENT TO MELVILLE DRIVE. TO PROVIDE PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT IS BEFORE YOU, I'M ATTEMPTING TO PURCHASE A SLIVER OF ORPHANED LAND THAT LIES BETWEEN MY PROPERTY LINE AND A VERTICAL CLIFF. THE PURCHASE OF THIS LAND IS SUPPORTED BY NOT ONE, BUT TWO LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. TO WITHHOLD SUCH A SALE OVER CONCERNS REGARDING HOW I OPERATE MY BUSINESS WITH NO RECORD OF COMPLAINTS DESPITE OVER 30 YEARS OF OPERATING OUT OF THE SAME LOCATION. I WOULD SUGGEST IS CHASING SHADOWS. THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE RAISED BY ADMINISTRATION WAS THE FACT THAT I EMPLOY PART TIME FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS A YEAR. A HANDFUL OF WONDERFUL LOCAL YOUNG PEOPLE, MANY OF THEM INDIGENOUS AND OFFER THEM THE WORK EXPERIENCE OF THEIR LIVES, COMPLETELY FREE TRAINING IN THE OUTDOORS, AND THE OPERATION OF A SMALL BUSINESS. I'M REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION TO DENY MY APPLICATION, SINCE SUCH A DENIAL WOULD ACTUALLY GO AGAINST ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT AND UNNECESSARILY CAUSE FURTHER HARDSHIP TO A STRUGGLING BUSINESS WHO HAS SERVED THIS COMMUNITY FOR OVER FOUR DECADES AND WHO HAS ALREADY BEEN PROFOUNDLY AFFECTED BY BORDER CLOSURES AND SCHOOL RESTRICTIONS. IN CLOSING, I'M HOPING THAT SEEING AS I'M AN OLD TIMER, YOU ALLOW ME TO SHARE ONE BRIEF STORY. 40 YEARS AGO, WHEN I FIRST MOVED TO YELLOWKNIFE, I MANAGED TO PLACE AMONG THE TOP FOUR FEMALE WHITEWATER KAYAKERS IN THE COUNTRY AND IN SO DOING, EARNED A BERTH ON THE NATIONAL TEAM SLATED TO COMPETE AT WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS AT [INAUDIBLE] WALES BACK IN THOSE DAYS UNLESS YOU WERE THE TOP COMPETITOR IN THE COUNTRY, THERE WAS NO FEDERAL FUNDING AVAILABLE AND ATHLETES WERE ON THEIR OWN TO MAKE THEIR DREAM OF COMPETING INTERNATIONALLY BECOME A REALITY. HAVING JUST MOVED TO YELLOWKNIFE WITH LITERALLY $50 IN MY POCKET, I SAW THE CHANCES OF COMPETING FOR MY COUNTRY AS BEING NOTHING MORE THAN A PIPE DREAM. PAT MCMANN, WHO WAS A COUNCILLOR AT THE TIME, HEARD OF MY DILEMMA. SHE SOUGHT ME OUT AND SAID, CATHY, YOU ARE GOING. I WAS JUST A KID. I JUST ARRIVED. SHE TOOK ME UNDER HER WING, LITERALLY GOING DOOR TO DOOR SOLICITING DONATIONS, AND SHE APPROACHED COUNCIL IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A BRIEF LEAVE OF ABSENCE SO THAT I COULD ATTEND THIS EVENT. PAT EVEN CAME TO MY APARTMENT TO DELIVER THE CHECK AND THE NEWS JUST BEFORE SHE LET GO OF THAT CHECK, SHE SAID, CATHY. THERE'S ONE CONDITION I HAD TO PROMISE TO COUNCIL ON A STACK OF BIBLES THAT YOU WOULD REMAIN IN. YELLOWKNIFE CONTINUE TO GIVE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS. I THOUGHT I HAD SOLD MY SOUL. I HAD NO IDEA WHAT I WAS DOING AT SIX MONTHS, LET ALONE TWO YEARS. I DID GO TO THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS THANKS TO THE SELFLESS EFFORTS OF MS. MCMANN, WHOSE MEMORY I'M DEEPLY INDEBTED. IT WAS A LIFE CHANGING EXPERIENCE. I DID RETURN TO YELLOWKNIFE AND GAVE BACK TO THIS COMMUNITY NOT FOR TWO, BUT 40 YEARS. FOR FOUR DECADES, I'VE BEEN PASSING ON SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE, PARTICULARLY TO THE YOUNG PEOPLE OF THIS COMMUNITY AND ACROSS THE NORTH. FOR THIS, I THINK PAT, GOD REST HER SOUL, WOULD BE VERY PROUD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? SEEING NONE. THANK YOU AGAIN, CATHY, FOR COMING TONIGHT. NO PROBLEM. NEXT, I HAVE THOMAS. OH, OK, TOM, YOU'RE ALREADY UP ON THE SCREEN. SO WITH THAT, I BELIEVE YOU WERE HERE FOR FIVE MINUTES AND OVER TO YOU. AWESOME. HELLO, EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS TOM MCLENNAN. THANKS EVERYONE FOR BEING HERE, AND THANKS ESPECIALLY TO CITY STAFF FOR PUTTING TOGETHER THESE POLICIES AND PRESENTING THEM. WE APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK. SO I'LL BE SHARING MY PERSONAL OPINION ON THE VACCINE REQUIREMENTS TODAY, BUT I'VE ALSO SPENT THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS TALKING WITH VARIOUS COMMUNITY MEMBERS ABOUT THIS TOPIC. A VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE I'VE SPOKEN TO ARE IN FAVOR OF VACCINE REQUIREMENTS AS AM I. IT'S UNDERSTOOD THERE WILL BE ACCESS ISSUES, ESPECIALLY FOR MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES. THE CITY SHOULD FOCUS ON TRYING TO MITIGATE THESE ISSUES. I UNDERSTAND THE TESTING OPTION ISN'T AVAILABLE IN THE TERRITORY CURRENTLY, BUT SHOULD THAT BECOME SO, THAT COULD BE ONE MITIGATION STRATEGY. I BELIEVE AND I'M HEARING TWO MAIN REASONS IN FAVOR OF VACCINE REQUIREMENTS. NUMBER ONE, A PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY IS THE REALM FOR EXPERTS AND SECOND, THAT THE IMPACT OF REJECTING VACCINE REQUIREMENTS WILL CREATE MORE HARM FOR THE RESIDENTS OF YK. ON THE FIRST POINT. EXPERT, HARD WORKING, DEDICATED SCIENTISTS AND POLICY MAKERS HAVE RECOMMENDED THESE ACTIONS. THESE POLICIES HAVE WORKED. [00:30:02] YELLOWKNIFE HAS BEEN AN AWESOME PLACE TO BE DURING COVID. I RECENTLY VISITED DOWN SOUTH AND MANY OF MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY SHARED STORIES OF LONG PERIODS OF ISOLATION IN CITIES. I'M VERY GLAD I DO NOT SHARE THESE MEMORIES. THESE REQUIREMENTS WILL LOWER THE RISK FOR INDIVIDUALS, CITY STAFF AND THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. I'VE HEARD FROM PEOPLE, INCLUDING SOME FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN WHO FEEL UNSAFE USING CITY FACILITIES WITHOUT A VACCINE REQUIREMENT. THE CITY NEEDS TO MAKE THESE PUBLIC SPACES SAFE FOR EVERYBODY. THROUGH LIMITING CASES AND HOSPITALIZATIONS, THIS POLICY CAN ALSO HELP US GET TO AN ENDEMIC PHASE OF THIS DISEASE FASTER. IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF COUNCILLOR TO CRAFT PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY OR TO TAKE IDEOLOGICAL STANCES. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A DIFFICULT CHOICE YOU'RE FACED WITH, BUT IN THESE INSTANCES WE MUST PLACE OUR TRUST IN EXPERTS WHO HAVE SPENT THEIR LIFETIME STUDYING THESE ISSUES. ON THE SECOND POINT, EIGHTY SEVEN PERCENT OF YELLOWKNIVERS HAVE HAD AT LEAST ONE DOSE OF A COVID VACCINE, EIGHTY FOUR PERCENT HAVE HAD BOTH. THIS IS A HUGE MAJORITY. I UNDERSTAND THERE WOULD BE HARM FOR THOSE WHO AREN'T VACCINATED, BUT THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF NO REQUIREMENTS AND LOW CAPACITY IS THAT MANY MORE PEOPLE WILL BE DENIED ACCESS. THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO OPTIONS, UNVACCINATED PEOPLE DO. THIS LARGER NUMBER OF VACCINATED RESIDENTS ARE ALSO TAXPAYERS PAYING FOR MOSTLY EMPTY FACILITIES AND MAYBE SACRIFICING OTHER CITY SERVICES TO COVER ANY BUDGET DEBT. EXERCISE AND SOCIAL INTERACTION ARE FUNDAMENTAL TO BEING HUMAN AND PROVIDING THESE IS A BASIC CITY FUNCTION. REJECTING THIS POLICY WILL DENY MORE PEOPLE AND CREATE MORE HARM. COUNCIL NEEDS TO THINK ABOUT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE AND HOW TO MAKE THE BEST OF A BAD SITUATION. I HAVE ALSO HEARD CALLS FOR CAUTION WHEN IMPLEMENTING VACCINE REQUIREMENTS, BUT THESE SEEM TO HAVE MORE TO DO WITH THE GENERAL DIRECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY. WHILE, I UNDERSTAND THESE CONCERNS, AND WHILE THEY ARE IMPORTANT, SETTING THE OVERALL PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY IS NOT THE JURISDICTION OF COUNCIL. THIS IS A DIFFICULT CHOICE BETWEEN UNDESIRABLE OPTIONS, BUT ONE OF THESE CHOICES CREATES A SAFER COMMUNITY FOR ALL AND PROVIDES GREATER ACCESS TO FUNDAMENTAL CITY SERVICES. I, ALONG WITH THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE I'VE SPOKEN TO, STRONGLY RECOMMEND COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROPOSED VACCINE REQUIREMENTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. THANK YOU, TOM. UH, WITH THAT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? SEEING NONE. THANKS AGAIN, TOM, FOR COMING TONIGHT. NEXT ON MY LIST IS DUSTIN. DUSTIN, WELCOME. I WILL RESET MY CLOCK THERE AND TURN IT OVER TO YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. MY NAME IS DUSTIN MARTIN, AND I'M A YK RESIDENT. I'M HERE TO SPEAK TO YOU THIS EVENING ONLY AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, AND I'M NOT SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION. I'M IN FAVOR OF A MANDATORY VACCINATION POLICY CITY FACILITIES. I HAVE A 19 MONTH OLD SON. HE IS NOT CURRENTLY ELIGIBLE TO BE VACCINATED. I FEEL MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE TAKING HIM TO CITY FACILITIES LIKE A FIELD HOUSE LIBRARY AND SWIMMING POOL, KNOWING THAT OTHERS AROUND HIM WERE VACCINATED. LAST WINTER, I TOOK PARENTAL LEAVE FOR FOUR MONTHS. ON VERY COLD DAYS WHEN IT WAS TOO COLD TO GO OUTSIDE, I WOULD TAKE HIM TO THE INDOOR PLAY AREA AT THE FIELD HOUSE. WE ALSO ENJOYED GOING TO THE LIBRARY. I FELT COMFORTABLE DOING THESE ACTIVITIES BECAUSE AT THAT TIME THERE WAS NO COMMUNITY TRANSMISSION OF COVID 19 IN YELLOWKNIFE. NOW THE SITUATION IS DIFFERENT. THE EASING OF HEALTH AND TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS AND MORE TRANSMISSIBLE VARIANTS, THE RISK OF TRANSMISSION IS HIGHER. VACCINATIONS REDUCE THIS RISK. WE HAVE SEEN HOW QUICKLY THE VIRUS CAN SPREAD OVER THE LAST TWO OR THREE MONTHS. SCHOOLS WERE CLOSED. SOME DAYCARES WERE CLOSED AND MANY ACTIVITIES WERE CANCELED. ALTHOUGH THE SITUATION HAS IMPROVED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, THE PANDEMIC IS NOT OVER, EVEN THOUGH WE ALL WISH IT WAS. THERE WILL LIKELY BE MORE OUTBREAKS OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS. ONE WAY TO REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF THESE OUTBREAKS IS TO ENSURE THAT AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE ARE VACCINATED IN PUBLIC SPACES AND IN PARTICULAR IN INDOOR PUBLIC SPACES. I KNOW THAT SOME FEEL THAT THE CITY HAS A DUTY TO ENSURE ACCESS TO PUBLIC FACILITIES FOR PEOPLE THAT CHOOSE NOT TO GET VACCINATED. HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THAT ENSURING PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY FOR FACILITY USERS, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE LIKE MY SON THAT CAN'T GET A VACCINE TAKES PRIORITY OVER AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO ACCESS A FACILITY IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO BE VACCINATED. CITIES AND TOWNS ACROSS CANADA HAVE ALREADY MADE MANDATORY VACCINATION POLICIES, AND THEY PUT THESE IN PLACE TO PROTECT EMPLOYEES AND FACILITY USERS. THIS IS THE BEST POLICY TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF PEOPLE AT [00:35:01] ACCESSING THESE FACILITIES. I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DAY WHEN MY SON CAN GET VACCINATED, AND I KNOW THAT WE ALL LOOK FORWARD TO THE DAY WHEN THIS PANDEMIC IS BEHIND US. HOWEVER, UNTIL THAT TIME COMES, WE NEED TO USE EVERY TOOL AT OUR DISPOSAL TO PREVENT AND MINIMIZE COMMUNITY SPREAD, AND A VACCINATION MANDATE AT CITY FACILITIES WILL HELP DO THIS. THE MANDATE IS NOT IN PLACE, I'LL BE LESS LIKELY TO TAKE MY SON TO FACILITIES THIS WINTER BECAUSE I'LL HAVE LESS CONFIDENCE THAT IT WILL BE SAFE FOR HIM AS LONG AS COVID CONTINUES TO SPREAD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? SEEING NONE. THANK YOU AGAIN, DUSTIN, FOR COMING TONIGHT. THANKS. NEXT ON MY LIST IS CAROL LOCKHART. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN. OK, MAYBE YOU CAN SEE ME. YEAH, NOW WE CAN. THERE YOU GO. SO, CAROL, I'M GOING OVER TO YOU. SURE. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE DIFFICULT CHALLENGE THAT HAS BEEN SET BEFORE YOU. AS LEADERS, YOU HAVE BOLDLY ACCEPTED THIS TASK TO LEAD OUR COMMUNITY TO CRAZY AND CONFUSING COVID DAYS AND I'M SURE AT TIMES YOU MAY BE FEELING THAT YOU'VE BITTEN OFF A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN YOU CAN CHEW. I'D LIKE TO PERSONALLY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE CITY FOR GIVING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE MY OPINIONS HERE TODAY AS ONE CITIZEN [INAUDIBLE]. MY NAME IS, YOU HAVE HEARD IS CAROL LOCKHART. I GREW UP IN A SMALL NORTHERN TOWN IN LABRADOR, AND MY FAMILY AND I HAVE LIVED IN YELLOWKNIFE FOR THESE PAST 11 YEARS. PRIOR TO THAT, I SERVED FOR 20 YEARS IN THE CANADIAN ARMY, AND I WAS PROUD TO DO SO, REPRESENTING OUR COUNTRY AND DEFENDING OUR FREEDOMS ACROSS THE GLOBE, INCLUDING TWO OPERATIONAL TOURS IN THE PERSIAN GULF. AS AN OFFICER IN THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY, I UNDERSTOOD MY DUTY, AND MOST OF THE TIME MY DUTY WAS TO FOLLOW ORDERS. AS A LEADER, HOWEVER, IT WAS ALSO MY DUTY TO ENSURE THAT OUR ORDERS WERE INDEED LAWFUL ORDERS. IN ORDER TO DO THIS, YOU HAVE TO HAVE FRANK AND OPEN DISCUSSIONS, AND I'M PROUD TO SEE THAT THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE ARRIVED AT. THIS FREE AND OPEN DISCOURSE IS A TENET OF OUR DEMOCRACY. YOUR VISION DESCRIBES YELLOWKNIFE AS THE WELCOMING, INCLUSIVE AND PROSPERING COMMUNITY, AND YOUR MISSION IS TO PROVIDE LEADERSHIP, VISION AND DIRECTION IN RESPONSE TO THE NEEDS AND ASPIRATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY. OF COURSE, IN A BOTTOM LINE WORLD, WE ALWAYS HAVE TO CONSIDER FINANCIAL IMPACTS. LAST WEEK, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE USER GROUP RENTALS MAKE UP THE BULK OF THE FINANCES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LIBRARY, AND TODAY ADMINISTRATION HAS HIGHLIGHTED A POSSIBLE DIFFERENCE OF SOMEWHERE IN THE ORDER OF 200000 IF THE VACCINE PASSPORT IS NOT ADOPTED. SO HERE WE ARE ASKED TO BALANCE THAT 200000 OUT OF OUR TOTAL BUDGET VERSUS UPHOLDING THE GOALS AND VALUES THAT YOU HAVE PUT FORWARD IN COUNCIL'S GOALS NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS ENSURING A HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL, INCLUDING FUTURE GENERATIONS. WE NEED TO DIG THIS A LITTLE FURTHER IN HERE, BECAUSE AS IT WAS EXPLAINED THIS AFTERNOON BY ADMINISTRATION, THIS IS NOT A SIMPLE CHOICE FOR ANYONE AND IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT A FAIR SOLUTION FOR EVERYONE, REQUIRES AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF WORK. SO MUCH WORK, INDEED, THAT THE VOLUNTEERS WHO RUN OUR SPORTS CLUBS, SUCH AS HOCKEY, SOCCER AND BASKETBALL, HAVE EXPEDITIOUSLY DECIDED TO IMPLEMENT THE VACCINE PASSPORT PROGRAM IN ORDER TO BEGIN OFFERING THEIR SERVICES AGAIN IN A TIMELY MANNER. THEY DON'T HAVE THE MANPOWER TO WORRY ABOUT THE 20 PERCENT, OR MAYBE JUST UNDER 20 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION, WHO, FOR WHATEVER PERSONAL REASON, HAS DECIDED TO DEFER, DELAY OR DECLINE THE VACCINE FOR THEMSELVES OR FOR THEIR CHILDREN. IT'S DISAPPOINTING, FOR SURE, BUT IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE. VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS SMALL TOWN ARE UNDER-RESOURCED AS IT IS, AND THEY CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH. AFTER ALL, MORE THAN 80 PERCENT OF US HAVE ALREADY COMPLIED AND MANY OF US ARE TIRED OF LOCKDOWNS AND BOARD CLOSURES. IT'S EASY TO BELIEVE IF THE REMAINING 20 PERCENT WOULD JUST COMPLY ALREADY, WE COULD GET BACK TO NORMAL. WHEN YOU HAVE 80 PERCENT OF A POPULATION ON ONE SIDE OF AN ISSUE, IT REALLY BECOMES EASY TO MARGINALIZE AND DEMEAN THE REMAINING 20 PERCENT. LOGIC CAN EASILY GO OUT OF THE WINDOW, AND WHEN MEDICAL NEWS CHANGES SEEMINGLY EVERY WEEK, IT'S EASY JUST TO LOCK INTO A POSITION AND STOP LISTENING. THIS IS WHEN LEADERS HAVE TO STOP REACTING AND REALLY THINK ABOUT FOLLOWING ORDERS AND HOW FOLLOWING ORDERS CAN SET PRECEDENTS AND REALLY AFFECT THE ACCEPTED NORMS OF THEIR SOCIETIES. YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL NOT TO CREATE AN US VERSUS THEM SOCIETY. DR. KANDOLA REPORTED LAST WEEK THAT COVID 19 IS INDEED BEING CONTRACTED AND TRANSMITTED BY FULLY VACCINATED INDIVIDUALS, AND A QUICK CHECK IN ON THE NWT DASHBOARD SHOWS THAT CURRENTLY THIRTY FOUR PERCENT OF POSITIVE CASES ARE IN FULLY VACCINATED INDIVIDUALS. OF COURSE, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE VACCINE ISN'T WORKING. IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT THE VACCINE ISN'T WORKING THE WAY THE GENERAL PUBLIC THOUGHT IT WOULD WORK AND WITH MORE THAN 80 PERCENT OF OUR POPULATION VACCINATED, IT IS PROTECTING OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. IN MORE GOOD NEWS, DR. TAM, CANADA'S CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER, REPORTED LAST WEEK, THAT LESS THAN [00:40:03] ONE PERCENT OF PEDIATRIC CASES CHILDREN LESS THAN 12 WERE DEVELOPING INTO HOSPITALIZATIONS OR SERIOUS OUTCOMES. THIS IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, AS VACCINATION PASSPORTS ARE NOW EXPECTED TO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR THAT AGE GROUP 5 TO 11, POSSIBLY BY CHRISTMAS, SAYS DR. KANDOLA. WHEN MEDICAL APPROACHES ACROSS DEVELOPED NATIONS DIFFER IN THEIR IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND WHEN CONFLICTING ADVICE IS CROSSING OUR COUNTRY, IT BEHOOVES ANYONE OUTSIDE OF A ONE SIZE FITS MOST MEDICAL HISTORY TO MAKE A MORE CONSIDERED APPROACH TO THEIR HEALTH CARE, AND THEIR HEALTH CARE DECISIONS FOR THEIR CHILDREN. IN CANADA, FREEDOM TO CHOOSE TO CONSENT TO MEDICAL TREATMENT IS PROTECTED UNDER CANADA'S HEALTH ACT. DR. KANDOLA HAS GIVEN US A CHOICE. WE CAN CHOOSE TO IMPLEMENT A VACCINE PASSPORT PROGRAM TO INCREASE CAPACITY. THIS IS EASY AND OBVIOUS CHOICE FOR USER GROUPS. IT'S A CHOICE MOST SPORTS GROUPS ARE TAKING. HOCKEY, SOCCER, BASKETBALL, CURLING, ALL AMONG THEM. WHEN USER GROUPS ARE CHOOSING TO IMPLEMENT THE VACCINE PASSPORT PROGRAM, THOSE RESIDENTS WHO ARE CHOOSING TO DEFER, DELAY OR DECLINE THE VACCINE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO TURN TO THE CITY FACILITIES TO MEET THEIR PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS. WITHOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF THE LIBRARY, WALKING, TRACK, SWIMMING POOL, OR ARENAS, THESE PEOPLE FOR WHOM REGULAR SPORTS OPTIONS ARE NOW NO LONGER AVAILABLE ARE GOING TO STRUGGLE. THESE PEOPLE ARE YOUR CONSTITUENTS. THEY RELY ON YOU TO BE THEIR VOICE IN THIS US VERSUS THEM WORLD WE THAT WE ARE LIVING IN. I TOLD YOU THAT I HAD THREE DAUGHTERS WHEN I DISCUSSED COMING HERE WITH MY 16 YEAR OLD TODAY. SHE TOLD ME NOT TO. SHE SAID I WILL BE JUDGED AND CANCELED FOR HAVING A DISSENTING OPINION AND YOU SEE THE IRONY HERE. THE CHILD OF A RETIRED SERVICE PEOPLE, MY HUSBAND MYSELF, WITH MORE THAN 40 YEARS OF DEFENDING THE FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS ACROSS THE GLOBE, WE HAVE A CHILD HERE WHO IN OUR COMMUNITY DOES NOT FEEL FREE OR EVEN SAFE TO EXPRESS A DISSENTING OPINION IN AN OPEN FORUM. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? THESE PEOPLE ARE MAKING THIS DIFFICULT CHOICE FOR YOU. THESE PEOPLE ARE. THE BREASTFEEDING MOM, WHOSE FAMILY DOCTOR HAD TO INFORM HER THAT NO STUDIES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED DETERMINING HOW VACCINATION WILL AFFECT HER CHILD'S DEVELOPING IMMUNE SYSTEM AND WHO NOW CAN'T HAVE HER PRESCHOOLER PARTICIPATE IN HOCKEY BECAUSE SHE CANNOT ENTER THE DRESSING ROOM TO TIE HIS SKATES, BECAUSE OF THE VAST VACCINE PASSPORT POLICY, SHE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ACCESS TO PUBLIC SKATING. IT'S THE YOUNG ADULT WHOSE FAMILY MOTION TO EXTEND MOVE BY COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS, SECOND COUNCILLOR SMITH. ANYBODY OPPOSED? SEEING NONE. YOU CAN CONTINUE. THANK YOU. IT'S THE YOUNG ADULT WHOSE FAMILY HAS EXPERIENCED HISTORICAL HARDSHIPS AT THE HAND OF OUR GOVERNMENT POLICIES WHO DOESN'T TRUST THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, WHO WAS EXPERIENCING SUCCESS AT ONE OF THE LOCAL MARTIAL ARTS STUDIOS BUT NOW CANNOT BECAUSE OF VACCINE PASSPORT. HE JUST WANTS TO CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO WORK OUT AT THE RUNNING TRACK. THESE ARE REAL PEOPLE WITH VALID MEDICAL CONCERNS THAT CANNOT BE ANSWERED WITH A ONE SIZE FITS ALL SOLUTION. THEY ARE CHOOSING TO DEFER OR DECLINE THE VACCINE AT THIS TIME, AND THEY ARE HAVING TO LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES. YOU, THE LEADERS OF THIS COMMUNITY, HAVE A CHOICE TO MAKE AS WELL, AND YOU WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR DECISION. YOU ARE SETTING THE PRECEDENTS FOR HOW OUR COMMUNITY TREATS A MINORITY OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO CHOOSE AN ALTERNATE HEALTH CARE PLAN AND YOU'RE SENDING MESSAGES TOO. DR. KANDOLA OFFERED YOU TWO CHOICES YOU CAN ACCEPT THE VACCINE PASSPORT PROGRAM, AND YOU CAN CONSCIOUSLY CHOOSE TO EXCLUDE AND ALIENATE A PORTION OF OUR POPULATION, WHICH IMPLIES TO THE LARGER POPULATION THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT AS VALUABLE TO A COMMUNITY. OR YOU CAN CHOOSE TO MAINTAIN MINIMALIZED FACILITY CAPACITIES OVER THE WINTER MONTHS. IT'S IMPERATIVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT BOTH OF THESE OPTIONS ARE SAFE, BUT ONLY ONE OPTION IS [INAUDIBLE] INCLUSIVE. ONLY ONE OPTION PUTS THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL FROM YOUR GUIDING DOCUMENTS TO THE FOREFRONT. THERE'S NO US VERSUS THEM. THESE PEOPLE ARE OUR FAMILIES, OUR FRIENDS, OUR NEIGHBORS AND OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS. THEY'RE STRUGGLING JUST AS WE ARE. THEY DESERVE OUR EMPATHY AND NOT OUR CONDEMNATION AND AS I SEE IT, YOU HOLD IT IN YOUR HANDS TO HELP US TO BE FREE FROM CREATING A DIVIDED US VERSUS THEM COMMUNITY WHERE THE MOST VULNERABLE AMONG US ARE SILENCED AND JUDGED AND LITERALLY LEFT OUT IN THE COLD. I LEAVE YOU LEADERS WITH THIS QUESTION ARE WE TRULY A WELCOMING, INCLUSIVE AND PROSPERING COMMUNITY AS WE PURPORT TO BE IN COUNCIL'S VISION? OR ARE WE NOT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND PATIENCE AND ATTENTION. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? COUNCILLOR MORGAN. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP AND THANKS TO YOU, CAROL, FOR COMING THIS EVENING, I KNOW IT'S NEVER EASY FOR PEOPLE TO PRESENT THEIR VIEWS TO COUNCIL AND ESPECIALLY NOT A DEBATE LIKE THIS, BUT WE REALLY ARE GLAD THAT YOU MADE THE DECISION [00:45:03] TO BE HERE TONIGHT AND TWO OF OUR OTHER PRESENTERS AS WELL. I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT ALONE IN THOSE POINTS YOU'RE MAKING AND THE VIEWS WE DID RECEIVE TONS OF EMAILS WITH POINTS AND SENTIMENTS SIMILAR TO YOURS. SO CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT ALONE, YOU'RE NOT A, YOU KNOW, TINY FRINGE VIEW. THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW WE CAN BE AS INCLUSIVE AS POSSIBLE AND GIVE PEOPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO ACCESS FACILITIES. I GUESS MY QUESTION, THOUGH, IS SO SEEING YOUR MAIN POINT IS HOW CAN WE BE INCLUSIVE AND, YOU KNOW, NOT EXCLUDE PEOPLE AND YOU DID POINT OUT, RIGHTLY, THAT WE HAVE THOSE TWO OPTIONS. SO WHAT DO YOU SAY TO PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, MANY MORE PEOPLE WILL BE EXCLUDED IF WE DON'T? ADOPT THE VACCINE MANDATE BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE SUCH LOW. CAPACITY LIMITS IN OUR FACILITIES THAT. UM, YOU KNOW, ONLY, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, A QUARTER OF THE PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO GET IN, SO LOTS OF PEOPLE WILL JUST NOT BE ABLE TO ACCESS OUR FACILITIES BECAUSE THE NUMBERS ARE SO LOW. DO YOU SEE A WAY OF RECONCILING THAT WITH THE VISION TO BE AS INCLUSIVE AND ACCESSIBLE AS POSSIBLE? OH, DID YOU WANT TO TAKE THE QUESTION? YES. YES. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. SO, ABSOLUTELY I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND THE DIFFICULTY HERE IS. I'M SURE, YOU KNOW, IF WE LOOK BACK, WE CAN SAY THAT SOMEBODY WHO IS MAKING THIS CHOICE TO DEFER OR OR, YOU KNOW, NOT TAKE THE VACCINE RIGHT AWAY, THAT'S A HARD CHOICE AND IT'S LIKE YOU SAY, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE CHOOSING WILDLY. I THINK THEY'RE MAKING A MEASURED CHOICE AND THEY DO HAVE TO LIVE WITH CONSEQUENCES AND I THINK SO THE CONSEQUENCES ARE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU'RE A TEENAGER AND YOU WERE, YOU KNOW, WORKING OUT AT ONE OF THE GYMS, NOW YOU DEFINITELY DON'T HAVE THE CHOICE BECAUSE THOSE GYMS ARE BUSINESSES AND THEY RUN ON, YOU KNOW, SET BUDGETS AND WE CAN'T EXPECT THOSE POOR BUSINESSES THAT HAVE BEEN TRYING TO SURVIVE COVID TO BE ABLE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE INDIVIDUALS. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THE WORK THAT GOES INTO CREATING AN APPLICATION TO BE DIFFERENT. I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT WORDS THERE, BUT TO VARY FROM THE PUBLIC ORDERS FOR EACH OF THE SPORTS ORGANIZATIONS IS AN AWFUL LOT OF WORK TO DO. I THINK AS A COMMUNITY, AS A GOVERNMENT, I THINK YOU HAVE MORE ACCESS, MORE ABILITY TO MAKE THOSE PLANS. AND I THINK THE PLANS CAN BE MADE AND THEY CAN BE MADE SAFE FOR MORE PEOPLE. VACCINATION IS ONE PIECE IN THIS RIGHT NOW, AND WE HAVE ALL DIFFERENT LAYERS THAT WE CAN USE, LIKE THE PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURES AND LIKE WASHING YOUR HANDS AND SOCIAL DISTANCING. I THINK WHAT WORKS AT THE WHAT'S BEEN WORKING AT THE LIBRARY IN THE LAST YEAR IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW WE CAN DO IT IF WE WANT TO PUT THE TIME AND ENERGY INTO COMING UP WITH A CREATIVE SOLUTION. THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT THE VACCINE PASSPORT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO GRAB ONTO AND PUT INTO PLACE BECAUSE WE WANT IT TO BE BEHIND US. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO CAN'T MAKE THIS CHOICE RIGHT NOW, AND I AND I WORRY THAT, YOU KNOW, ONCE WE HAVE THE FIVE TO 11 YEAR OLD COHORT IN THERE THAT IT'S ONLY GOING TO BECOME A LARGER GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING A HEALTH CARE CHOICE. THAT'S DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVE TO WHAT WHAT THE MAJORITY WANTS RIGHT NOW. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. I THINK THERE'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS THAT ARE AVAILABLE, BUT MAYBE THE CITY THINGS ARE THE THINGS THAT SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, PROTECTED. I REACHING YOU? SORRY, DID YOU HAVE MORE TO ADD? SHE WAS JUST SAYING, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YEAH. AND I MEAN, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE AMOUNT OF THOUGHT YOU'VE PUT INTO THIS AND HOW MUCH YOU CARE ABOUT OTHERS IN THE COMMUNITY THAT DEFINITELY COMES THROUGH LOUD AND CLEAR. SO WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TODAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? SEEING NONE THANKS AGAIN, CAROL, FOR COMING TONIGHT. NEXT, I HAVE TIM MORTON, TIM, I BELIEVE YOU ARE ON. YEAH, CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN. I'VE TRIED TO TURN MY CAMERA ON A FEW TIMES. I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S NOT WORKING. IT'S GIVING ME SOME SORT OF ERROR. I'VE NEVER USED GO TO MEETINGS, SO I APOLOGIZE. LOOK ME UP ON FACEBOOK. IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT I LOOK LIKE SO. [CHUCKLING] WE CAN HEAR YOU; THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS. [00:50:02] I'LL TURN THE FLOOR OVER TO YOU. OK, THANK YOU. MY NAME IS TIM MORTON, AND I'M HERE SPEAKING TO YOU IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE PROOF OF VACCINATION POLICY. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW ME, I'M A FATHER OF TWO KIDS WHO USE THE FACILITY ON AN EXTREMELY REGULAR BASIS. A USER OF THOSE FACILITIES, MYSELF AND A VOLUNTEER AND USER GROUPS SUCH AS YELLOWKNIFE MINOR HOCKEY. AT NO POINT WILL I BE DISCUSSING THE VACCINE OR ITS EFFECTIVENESS, BUT I WILL BE FOCUSING ON THE EFFECT THAT THE PANDEMIC HAS HAD ON ME, MY CHILDREN AND OUR FACILITY USER GROUPS. YELLOWKNIFE MINOR HOCKEY HAS EXPERIENCED AN EXTREME LEVEL OF VOLUNTEER BURNOUT. ANYONE THAT'S BEEN INVOLVED IN MINOR HOCKEY PRE-COVID KNOWS HOW DIFFICULT VOLUNTEERING CAN BE. HOWEVER, YOU ADD THE RESTRICTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED ON YELLOWKNIFE MINOR HOCKEY AND YOU'VE ADDED GAS TO AN ALREADY SEEMINGLY OUT OF CONTROL WILDFIRE. IN ORDER TO PLAY HOCKEY, WE HAVE HAD TO IMPLEMENT OUR OWN PROOF OF VACCINATION POLICY, WHICH REQUIRES ALL PARTICIPANTS, VOLUNTEERS AND SPECTATORS TO PROVIDE A PROOF OF VACCINATION PRIOR TO COMING TO THE ARENA. THIS HAS HELPED US GET BACK TO A SEMI-NORMAL ON ICE NUMBERS, HOWEVER, WHEN IT COMES TO SPECTATORS, WE'RE NOW UNDER RESTRICTIONS EVEN MORE STRICT THAN WE WERE IN APRIL 2020. DUE TO FACILITY SPECTATOR NUMBERS, WE HAVE HAD TO MAKE THE DIFFICULT DECISION TO RESTRICT SPECTATORS TO ONE PERSON PER CHILD, WHICH MEANS BOTH MUM AND DAD, GRANDPA AND GRANDMA CANNOT COME TO WATCH THEIR KIDS PLAY HOCKEY. WE HAVE HAD VOLUNTEERS SITTING AT TABLES TRYING TO ENFORCE SPECTATOR NUMBERS, CHECKING PROOF OF VACCINATIONS, ASKING SCREENING QUESTIONS AND TAKING THE BRUNT OF ANGER FROM A VERY AND I MEAN VERY SMALL MINORITY OF PEOPLE THAT DON'T AGREE WITH THESE RESTRICTIONS COMPARED TO SMALL USER GROUPS. IT WOULD TAKE A MINIMAL EFFORT FOR THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE TO IMPLEMENT A PROOF OF VACCINATION REQUIREMENT AT THE RECREATION FACILITIES, LEAVING IT TO THE VOLUNTEERS WHO RUN OUR MINOR SPORTS IS NOT FAIR. IT'S COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE AND COMES ACROSS AS PASSING THE BUCK WHEN IT COMES TO RESPONSIBILITIES. AS A FATHER, I'VE WATCHED MY KIDS' SWIMMING LESSONS BE CANCELED ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS. HAVE TO PLACE THEM ON WAITING LIST BECAUSE I'VE LOGGED INTO THE SYSTEM A NINE TO ONE A.M. AND BEEN TOLD THAT THE FACILITY HAS A 25 PERSON LIMIT DURING PUBLIC SWIMS. BUT THE MOST HEARTBREAKING THING OF ALL THIS IS THAT MY DAUGHTER HAS A BIRTHDAY PARTY BOOKED AT THE POOL ON NOVEMBER 20TH AND HAS TWENTY SEVEN KIDS IN HER CLASSROOM. I'LL DO THE MATH FOR YOU FOR ADULTS THAT NEED TO COME TO THE POOL LEAVES 21 SPOTS FOR KIDS. THIS MEANS SHE HAS TO GO THROUGH A CLASS LIST AND CHOOSE WHAT SIX KIDS DO NOT GET INVITED TO HER BIRTHDAY PARTY. YOU SHOULD TRY EXPLAINING TO HER WHEN SHE ASKS WHY SHE CAN'T GIVE INVITES TO EVERYONE IN HER CLASS. THERE WILL BE SIX KIDS SITTING THERE WITHOUT AN INVITE, PROBABLY FEELING PRETTY LEFT OUT. MY DAUGHTER WILL BE FEELING PRETTY HORRIBLE AND NO POINT SHOULD YOUNG KIDS FEEL THIS WAY. LORD KNOWS I HAVE NOT AGREED WITH MANY OF THE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICERS PLACED UPON THE CITY OR SPORTS ORGANIZATIONS DURING THIS PANDEMIC. IN FACT, I'VE BEEN VERY VOCAL ABOUT SOME OF THESE POLICIES AND RESTRICTIONS, BUT THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE CONTROL OF SOME OF THESE RESTRICTIONS IN YOUR FACILITIES AND IMPROVE THE LIVES OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF FACILITY USERS. I ASK YOU TO VOTE TO LET PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS WATCH THEIR KIDS PLAY SPORTS. VOTE TO STOP HAVING KIDS FEEL LEFT OUT BECAUSE THEY DON'T GET INVITED TO BIRTHDAY PARTIES. VOTE TO REDUCE VOLUNTEER BURNOUT WITHIN OUR MINOR SPORTS USER GROUPS AND VOTE TO TAKE EVEN THE MOST MINOR AMOUNTS OF STRESS OFF THE PEOPLE AND HELP THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE AND ITS PEOPLE RETURN TO PRE-NORMAL COVID LIFESTYLE. THESE DECISIONS ARE NOT EASY TO MAKE. I KNOW BECAUSE I WAS THE ONE WHO WROTE AND RECOMMENDED THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE YELLOWKNIFE MINOR HOCKEY PROOF OF VACCINATION POLICY, WHICH TORE ME UP AND I KNOW THAT I'M SPEAKING FROM MY POINT OF VIEW. BUT AS ELECTED CITY COUNCILLORS, WHEN THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE SUPPORTS A POLICY SUCH AS THIS, YOU SHOULD STEP IN AND IMPLEMENT IT. PLEASE VOTE TO IMPLEMENT THIS POLICY. WE NEED IT, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, TIM, AND THANKS FOR ALL THAT YOU DO FOR HOCKEY AS WELL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? SEEING NONE. THANK YOU AGAIN, TIM, FOR COMING TONIGHT. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, GUYS. NEXT ON MY LIST IS MIKE OTTO, 'YOU ONLINE? CAN YOU HEAR ME? OK, YES, WE CAN. I WILL TURN IT OVER TO YOU. OKAY, PERFECT. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. YEAH, MY NAME IS MIKE OTTO. I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF YELLOWKNIFE FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS NOW AND AS A QUICK PREFACE, I JUST WANT TO SAY I'VE NEVER BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY SORT OF MUNICIPAL MEETING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY I APPRECIATE HOW THE WEEKLY CAPITAL UPDATE AND JUST HOW EASY IT'S BEEN TO KIND OF KEEP TAB OF THINGS AND GET INVOLVED IN THIS MEETING. [00:55:02] SO THANKS FOR BEING SO TRANSPARENT. BUT IN THIS MEETING, I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY AND MY DISAPPOINTMENT, I THINK IN SEEING THE RESULT OF THAT PREVIOUS VOTE, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM READING IN THE MEDIA ABOUT THIS IS THAT THE MAIN CONCERN FROM COUNCILLORS AGAINST IT WAS ABOUT FREEDOM AND ABOUT FAIRNESS, WHICH IS SOMETHING WE'VE KIND OF HEARD ABOUT ALREADY PEOPLE SPEAKING ABOUT AND I THINK THERE'S SOME TRUTH TO THAT, THAT IT IS UNFAIR TO RESTRICT UNVACCINATED PEOPLE FROM BEING ABLE TO ATTEND. BUT I THINK WHAT'S MISSING IN THAT BALANCE THAT NEEDS TO BE WEIGHED IS THE UNFAIRNESS AND THE INFRINGEMENT ON FREEDOMS OF THE EVERYONE ELSE. ESSENTIALLY, THAT SUFFERS FROM THIS. SO SOME OF THESE HAVE BEEN COVERED ALREADY, BUT THERE'S ALL THE PEOPLE THAT CAN'T ACCESS THE FACILITIES BECAUSE OF THE VASTLY REDUCED OPERATING CAPACITY OF EACH UNVACCINATED CHILDREN AND IMMUNOCOMPROMISED WHO CAN'T EFFECTIVELY BE VACCINATED ARE NOW AT GREATER RISK. ALL THE OTHER VACCINATED FACILITY USERS WERE AT GREATER RISK BECAUSE NONE OF THESE VACCINES ARE 100 PERCENT EFFECTIVE. YOUR STAFF WORKING AT THE FACILITIES, WE HAVE TO INTERACT WITH UNVACCINATED PEOPLE AND THEN LASTLY, ALL ALL CITIZENS OF THE CITY WHO HAVE TO BEAR THE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF THE LOWER REVENUE THESE FACILITIES ARE BRINGING IN WHEN THEY'RE OPERATING AT REDUCED CAPACITY. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT PERSONAL CHOICE IS IMPORTANT, OBVIOUSLY, AND I MYSELF HAVE BEEN IRRITATED BY THE RESTRICTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED THROUGH THIS LONG PANDEMIC, BUT I THINK THAT A CITY IS ESSENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, IT'S A SOCIETY, IT'S A GROUP OF PEOPLE LIVING TOGETHER. BUT I THINK AT THIS POINT, THE CHOICE THAT UNVACCINATED PEOPLE ARE MAKING IS FUNDAMENTALLY ANTI-SOCIAL. WE HAVE A VACCINE. ANYONE CAN GET IT AND HAS BEEN ABLE TO FOR LIKE NINE MONTHS NOW AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE ACCOMMODATING THOSE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO GET THE VACCINE WHEN THE REST OF US ARE DOING OUR PART AND THEN WE'RE SHOULDERING THE BURDEN OF THEIR CHOICE. SO THAT'S MY FEELINGS ON THE MATTER. SO THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, MIKE, AND THANKS FOR THE FEEDBACK ON THE CAPITAL UPDATES. BE SURE TO PASS IT ON TO STAFF, AND IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, WE'RE HAVING A STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ZONING BYLAW, WHICH WOULD BE A GREAT MEETING ON SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 27TH. IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT ONE AS WELL, I ALWAYS LIKE TO DO THE PLUG FOR THAT ONE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? SEEING NONE. THANKS AGAIN, MIKE, FOR COMING IN TONIGHT. NEXT ON MY LIST, I HAVE ARIEL STEWARTS, I BELIEVE I SAW ARIEL. YES, IN THE LIST OF ATTENDEES. YES, I'M HERE. HI, ARIEL. OK, I WILL RESET THE CLOCK AND I WILL HAND IT OVER TO YOU FOR FIVE MINUTES. OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I JUST WANT TO READ THE LETTER I HAD SENT LAST NIGHT TO THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL. SO MY NAME IS ARIEL STEWART AND I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT OF YELLOWKNIFE FOR 14 YEARS. IN THOSE 14 YEARS I'VE COME TO KNOW YELLOWKNIFE AS A WELCOMING AND INCLUSIVE ENVIRONMENT. KEEPING THAT IN MIND, I HAD ALWAYS THOUGHT THE CITY WOULD PARTICIPATE IN POLICIES AND INITIATIVES THAT WOULD TREAT ALL RESIDENTS FAIRLY AND EQUALLY. THE VACCINATION MANDATE DOES JUST THE OPPOSITE. I AM COMPLETELY AGAINST THE VACCINATION MANDATE AND THE CITY SHOULD BE TOO. I UNDERSTAND THAT ONE OF THE ISSUES IS THAT SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE IF THE CITY SAYS NO TO THE MANDATE THAT THE CITY APPEARS TO BE ANTI-VACCINATION. THE MANDATE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BELIEVING IN THE VALIDITY OF COVID 19 VACCINATIONS. THIS MANDATE IS NOT DENYING CLAIMS MADE BY SCIENCE. THIS MANDATE IS, HOWEVER, DENIED MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY ACCESS TO FACILITIES THAT THEIR TAX DOLLARS DIRECTLY HELP FUND. I UNDERSTAND THE COUNCIL'S DESIRE TO KEEP THEIR FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS SAFE. HOWEVER, BY STRICTLY DENYING ACCESS ONLY TO THE POPULATION WHO CHOOSE NOT TO BE VACCINATED, YOU'RE ULTIMATELY CONTRIBUTING TO THE ONGOING DIVIDE BETWEEN THE VACCINATED AND UNVACCINATED POPULATIONS IN YOUR COMMUNITY. AS WE HAVE SEEN IN THE MOST RECENT OUTBREAK IN THE NWT, VACCINATED INDIVIDUALS GET COVID AND CAN TRANSMIT IT TO CAN THE COUNCIL BE COMPLETELY CONFIDENT THAT THIS MANDATE WILL PREVENT A COVID POSITIVE INDIVIDUAL FROM ACCESSING THEIR FACILITIES? WHY NOT EXPLORE THE OPTION OF PROOF OF A NEGATIVE COVID TEST FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR VACCINATION STATUS? THIS WOULD BE A FAIR AND EQUAL REQUIREMENT OF ALL COMMUNITY MEMBERS. AT THE VERY LEAST, THIS OPTION SHOULD BE OFFERED TO THE UNVACCINATED POPULATION INSTEAD OF DENYING THEM ACCESS ENTIRELY. JUST BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL IS UNVACCINATED DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE THEM A COVID 19 THREAT. ALSO, WHY ONLY NOW ARE WE EXPLORING THIS MANDATE OPTION, ESPECIALLY WHEN OUR COVID CASE NUMBERS ARE IN RAPID DECLINE? WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR PLACING THIS TYPE OF RESTRICTION? HAVE WE HAD AN OUTBREAK IN A CITY FACILITY TO DATE? IF THE MANDATE GETS APPROVED, HOW LONG IS IT IN PLACE? IS IT BASED ON COVID CASES IN THE COMMUNITY? AS I'M SPEAKING, WE HAVE 24 ACTIVE CASES IN THE COMMUNITY OF YELLOWKNIFE. IS THIS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SUCH A RESTRICTIVE MANDATE? [01:00:02] WE ALL WANT TO RETURN TO NORMAL. BUT BY AGREEING TO THIS MANDATE, YOU ARE DENYING NORMAL FROM ANY OF YOUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS WITHOUT PROPER REASONING, A TIME FRAME FOR THE PROPOSED MANDATE OR ALTERNATIVE MEASURES FOR THOSE WHO ARE UNVACCINATED. AS THE CITY COUNCIL, YOU OWE IT TO YOUR COMMUNITY TO BASE POLICIES ON SOUND AND INFORMED REASONING WITH OPTIONS. BY SAYING YES TO THIS MANDATE, YOU WERE SAYING YESTERDAY DIVIDE IN OUR COMMUNITY BY VOTING NO, YOU ARE NOT DISRESPECTING OR PLACING FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON VACCINATED CITIZENS, BUT ARE INCLUDING EVERYONE. I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR MY TIME, AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ARIEL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? SEEING NONE. THANK YOU AGAIN, ARIEL, FOR COMING TODAY AND FOR SENDING IN YOUR LETTER YESTERDAY. LAST ON MY LIST IS MICHELLE. MICHELLE, I BELIEVE I SAW YOU. YES. HI, IS THAT ME? YES, IF THIS IS MICHELLE [INAUDIBLE], SORRY IF I'M MISPRONOUNCING YOUR LAST NAME? YEAH, THAT'S ME. MICHELLE, I WILL HAVE THE FLOOR OVER TO YOU FOR FIVE MINUTES. OK, THANK YOU. HI, COUNCILLOR, I'M HERE TO SPEAK, YOU GUYS IN SUPPORT OF A VACCINE PASSPORTS. I THINK BY NOT HAVING ONE, YOU'RE NOT MAKING THE CITIES ACCESSIBLE TO ALL. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO CAN'T ACCESS CITY FACILITIES IF THEY DON'T FEEL THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE SAFE AND AROUND PEOPLE THAT WILL HAVE HERD IMMUNITY, THE IMMUNOCOMPROMISED YOUNG CHILDREN, PEOPLE AT RISK OF SEVERE OUTCOMES FROM COVID 19, WE'RE AT RISK WHEN WE'RE AROUND PEOPLE WHO AREN'T VACCINATED OR PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY SICK WITH COVID. I ALSO THINK THAT THERE IS A REALLY IMPORTANT CONVERSATION TO BE HAD AROUND, LIKE VACCINE HESITANCY, WESTERN MEDICINE, HESITANCY AND COLONIALISM. THAT'S AN IMPORTANT THING THAT WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT AS WELL AND SO I'M KIND OF ON THE FENCE ABOUT BOTH HAVING A VACCINE PASSPORT OR NOT. SO ANOTHER THING I WANT TO PROPOSE IS HAVING TIMES THAT PEOPLE CAN ACCESS THE FACILITY WITHOUT VACCINE PASSPORT AND TIMES THAT PEOPLE CAN. UM, YEAH, THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MICHELLE, FOR COMING TONIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? SEEING NONE. THANK YOU AGAIN, MICHELLE. THAT IS THE END OF MY LIST OF PRESENTERS, AND I BELIEVE THAT IS EVERYBODY WHO HAS SIGNED ON TONIGHT. I WILL DO A QUICK SCAN. AGAIN, A BIG THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY FOR COMING. I KNOW PUBLIC SPEAKING CAN BE INTIMIDATING AND I APPRECIATE THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM BOTH SIDES ON THIS IMPORTANT POLICY. WE'VE RECEIVED OVER THREE HUNDRED EMAILS AS WELL ON THIS, SO IT'S DEFINITELY BEEN AN ISSUE THAT THE PUBLIC HAS ENGAGED WITH COUNCILLOR A LOT ON. WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE TO MEMBERS' STATEMENTS, THERE WERE NO STATEMENTS FOR THE AGENDA, BUT I HAVE COUNCILLOR KONGE AND THEN COUNCILLOR SMITH ON THE SPEAKING ORDER COUNCILLOR KONGE. THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. I'D LIKE TO APOLOGIZE FOR THE COMPARISON I MADE LAST WEEK DURING THE PROOF OF VACCINATION POLICY DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD AT GPC. I DID NOT MEAN FOR MY WORDS TO HURT ANYONE, BUT THEY DID AND FOR THAT, I AM DEEPLY SORRY. THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR SMITH. THANK YOU. YOUR WORSHIP. FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK EVERYONE FOR REACHING OUT TO COUNCIL THE ENTHUSIASM THAT WE HAVE FOR OUR CITY IS OUTSTANDING AND IT DOESN'T GO WITHOUT NOTICE. AS A PARENT, WE TELL OUR CHILDREN THAT BULLYING NAME CALLING AND EXCLUSION IS WRONG. EVERYONE MATTERS. WE WANT OUR KIDS TO GROW WITH COMPASSION, WITH A SENSE OF EMPATHY AND [01:05:01] TOLERANCE. UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENCES. THAT'S WHAT MAKES US UNIQUE AND AS ADULTS. I WISH WE FOLLOWED OUR OWN ADVICE. THESE PAST FEW WEEKS HAVE BEEN THE MOST HEATED THAT COUNCIL HAS EXPERIENCED. WE HAVE DEBATED ON THE WELL-BEING OF A GROUP OF PEOPLE TO THE WELL-BEING OF AN ENTIRE COMMUNITY AND IN THE PROCESS, WE HAVE HAD TO ENDURE SOME HURTFUL STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. I HAVE BEEN CALLED A RACIST AGAINST MY OWN PEOPLE AND A BIGOT AGAINST A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE THE REASON THAT I RAN FOR COUNCIL IN THE FIRST PLACE AND MANY OTHER DEROGATORY NAMES, BECAUSE MY VIEWS DO NOT ALIGN WITH OTHERS AND THAT'S NOT OK. I WAS ELECTED BY MY PEERS BECAUSE OF MY CONVICTIONS. MY VALUES, MY PERSPECTIVES, MY HEART AND AS SUCH, MY OPINIONS AND VIEWS WILL NOT ALWAYS ALIGN WITH THE MAJORITY. BUT NO. I'M ALWAYS REPRESENTING MY COMMUNITY. LAST WEEK'S GPC, WE WERE GIVEN AN ANALOGY BY A FELLOW COUNCILLOR THAT SHOOK A CITY. AS AN INDIGENOUS PERSON, I DIDN'T FEEL THAT THIS ANALOGY WAS RACIST. PROBABLY NOT THE BEST ANALOGY. BUT WHAT THEY WERE GETTING THAT WAS DIVISION SEGREGATION. THEY SAID WHAT MANY WERE THINKING, BUT FEW DARE TO SAY BECAUSE OF THE BACKLASH. IN MY OPINION, THIS IS THE KIND OF PASSION YOU WANT IN A CITY REPRESENTATIVE, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS FEARLESS. A READINESS TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND ADDRESS DIFFICULT ISSUES. I DON'T KNOW HOW TONIGHT'S DECISION WILL CONCLUDE. THIS IS A DIFFICULT POSITION TO BE IN. IT HAS AFFECTED MY FAMILY. IT HAS AFFECTED MY LIVELIHOOD AND IT'S AFFECTED ME. IT IS A RESPONSIBILITY THAT IS NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART. BUT I STAND STRONG. I STAND UNYIELDING IN REPRESENTING MY YELLOWKNIFE AND MY HOME [INAUDIBLE]. THANK YOU. IT IS DIFFICULT WHEN--I'LL SAVE BECAUSE I HAVE COMMENTS ABOUT THAT, BUT I'VE INCLUDED IT IN MY SPEECH AT THE END FOR OUR DISCUSSION, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR WORDS, COUNCILLOR SMITH. UH, ANY FURTHER MEMBER STATEMENTS FROM THE COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOUR WORSHIP FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL FOR EVERYTHING YOU HAVE DONE FOR THE BEAUTIFUL CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE. IT HAS NOT BEEN EASY OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS OVER THE LAST MONTH FOR US TO BE ABLE TO SERVE OUR COMMUNITY. BUT FOR EVERYTHING WE DO, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR PASSION FOR THE YOU HAVE FOR THE CITIZENS OF YELLOWKNIFE. I THANK YOU. TODAY, I JUST WANT TO TAKE TIME TO SPEAK TO THE RESIDENTS OF YELLOWKNIFE AND TO MY FELLOW COUNCILLORS. I JUST WANT TO [INAUDIBLE] IS IT ME OR IS IT COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA'S INTERNET? COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA? OK. YEAH, I THINK SHE MIGHT BE GLITCHING. COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA, I WILL TYPE [INAUDIBLE] OF RACISM. COUNCILMAN MUFANDAEDZA [INAUDIBLE] I BELIEVE [INAUDIBLE] WE'LL JUST TRY TO GET YOU TO START AGAIN BECAUSE WE MISSED YOUR WHOLE STATEMENT. AND WE MIGHT HAVE JUST LOST HER. COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA. [01:10:24] MADAM CHAIR, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW, WE BASICALLY LOST YOU RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO RESTART, THEN WE'LL CAPTURE IT ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I DON'T HAVE MY CAMERA ON I DO KNOW WE'RE HAVING INTERNET ISSUES. PERFECT. YEAH, NO, KEEP YOUR CAMERA OFF, BECAUSE THEN I KNOW THAT THAT TRICK TENDS TO HELP, SO KEEP YOUR CAMERA ON AND LET'S GO WITH THE DIALOG. OK, PERFECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M NOT SURE WHERE I LEFT OFF, BUT I JUST WAS TAKING TIME TO THANK YELLOWKNIFE RESIDENTS TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE DONE FOR THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE. ALL THE DECISIONS THAT WE'VE HAD TO MAKE, AND I WAS JUST IN THE PROCESS OF READING A NOTE FROM MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. IT SAYS I REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE VIEW THAT MANKIND IS SO TRAGICALLY BOUND TO THE STARLESS MIDNIGHT OF RACISM AND WAR THAT THE BRIGHT DAYBREAK OF PEACE AND BROTHERHOOD CAN NEVER BECOME A REALITY. I BELIEVE THAT UNARMED TRUTH AND UNCONDITIONAL LOVE WILL HAVE THE FINAL WORD. AS A YELLOWKNIFE RESIDENT AND AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY. LET US NOT FORGET HOW FAR WE HAVE COME IN BUILDING THIS BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY, A COMMUNITY BUILT ON BROTHERLY LOVE, TRUST AND TOLERANCE WHERE CALLING EACH OTHER RACIST HAS NO PLACE. INDEED, WE MIGHT DIFFER IN OUR OPINION AND HOW WE EXPRESS OUR OPINIONS, BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE US RACIST. I LEAVE YOU GUYS WITH THE BEAUTIFUL WORDS OF MAYA ANGELOU, WHO SAYS WE DELIGHT IN THE BEAUTY OF THE BUTTERFLY BUT RARELY ADMIT THE CHANGE IT HAS GONE THROUGH TO ACHIEVE THAT BEAUTY. THIS IS US, GUYS. THIS IS US, YELLOWKNIFE. WE'RE BEAUTIFUL TOGETHER, AND LET'S MOVE TOGETHER AS A STRONG, BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA. APPRECIATE THE WORDS. ANYTHING FURTHER FROM COUNCIL? SEEING, NONE. NEXT, WE HAVE INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS, [Items 15 & 16] COUNCILLOR MORGAN IF YOU CAN INTRODUCE THE GPC REPORT FOR OCTOBER 25TH, PLEASE. OH, SORRY. AND WITH THIS, COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS IS EXCUSING HIMSELF. OK, SO I MOVE THAT COUNCIL DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO RESPOND TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LANDS, G NWT SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF LOT 65 BLOCK 503 PLAN 4476 AT 84 CURRY DRIVE PURSUANT TO PART FOUR OF THE ZONING BYLAW NUMBER 444 AS AMENDED. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE A SECONDER? COUNCILLOR KONGE, ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING, NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA, ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF ITEM NUMBER 16, WHICH IS RESPONDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LANDS SUBDIVISION OF LOT AT 84 CURRY DRIVE? OK. SHE IS GONE HAVING INTERNET CONNECTIONS, SO THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY WITH THOSE WHO ARE IN ATTENDANCE, WHICH IS COUNCILLOR PAYNE, MORGAN, SMITH, KONGE, MORSE, SILVERIO AND ALTY SINCE COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS HAS EXCUSED HIMSELF. COUNCILLOR MORGAN TO ITEM NUMBER 17. [17. Councillor Morgan moves, Councillor ____________ seconds, That Council appoint Sarah Swan, a representative from Arts, Crafts and Film, to serve on the Mayor’s Task Force on Economic Development for a three (3) year term commencing November 9, 2021 and ending November 8, 2024.] I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPOINT, SARAH SWAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARTS, CRAFTS AND FILM TO SERVE ON THE MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR A THREE YEAR TERM COMMENCING NOVEMBER 9TH 2021 AND ENDING NOVEMBER 8TH, 2024. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECONDER COUNCILLOR SILVERIO. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING, NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA, I SEE YOU APPEAR TO BE BACK ON. ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF APPOINTING SARAH SWAN TO THE TASK FORCE? MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON EC DEV. SO VERY SORRY, YOUR WORSHIP, MY INTERNET IS REALLY BAD, I TOTALLY MISSED WHERE WE'RE AT AND REALLY SORRY ABOUT THAT. OH NO, NOT A PROBLEM. IT'S ITEM NUMBER 17, WHICH IS WHETHER TO APPOINT SARAH SWAN AS THE ARTS, CRAFTS AND FILM REP ON THE MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. ARE YOU IN FAVOR? THANK YOU, I'M IN FAVOR. THANK YOU. THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILLOR MORGAN NUMBER 18. [Items 18 & 19] [01:15:02] I'M SORRY. 18 IS THE GOVERNANCE AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE REPORT FOR NOVEMBER 1ST, IF YOU CAN INTRODUCE NUMBER 19 THERE. I MOVE THAT AN APPLICATION TO PURCHASE A 567 SQUARE METER PORTION OF LOT [INAUDIBLE] 1001 QUAD 85J/8 BY THE OWNER OF LOT 24 BLOCK 13 AT 4702 ANDERSON THOMSON BOULEVARD BE DENIED. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECONDER? COUNCILLOR KONGE. ANY DISCUSSION. COUNCILLOR KONGE. THANK YOU YOUR WORSHIP, WHAT IS OUR CURRENT DEFINITION OF? LET ME JUST LOOK AT WHAT THE WORDS WERE THAT WE'RE USED. ORPHANED LAND IN OUR CURRENT BYLAW. MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR WORSHIP, I WILL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE COULD RESPOND TO THIS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. SO THAT WAS A TERM USED BY THE APPLICANT, AND I'M NOT AWARE THAT THERE'S A DEFINITION FOR THAT LAND. YEAH, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, I DO RECALL I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT YEAR IT WAS, BUT. YOU KNOW, COUNCIL AND IT WAS THE COUNCIL THAT I WAS ON FOR SURE. YOU KNOW, WE DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO FIND THESE. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE TERM WAS. I'M NOT SURE IT WAS ACTUALLY ORPHANED, BUT IT WAS. THE SUBSTANDARD. SUBSTANDARD PARCELS. I BELIEVE SO. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, WOULD THIS BE CONSIDERED A SUBSTANDARD PARCEL IF IT WOULD FIT THE TERMS OF THAT IN OUR BYLAW? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I WILL ASK MS. WHITE TO RESPOND, BUT THIS IS A PORTION THAT'S BEING REQUESTED OF A LARGER LOT. MS. WHITE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES. IT CURRENTLY ISN'T A STAND ALONE PARCEL, THOUGH THE REQUEST FOR THE PURCHASE IS TO CREATE A PARCEL TO BE ADDED TO THE APPLICANT'S EXISTING LAND. CURRENTLY, THIS LAND FORMS A MUCH LARGER PIECE OF LAND, WHICH GOES ALL THE WAY BEHIND A HUGE NEIGHBORHOOD AREA AND COVERS THAT BLUFF OVERLOOKING [INAUDIBLE] OK. THANK YOU FOR THOSE CLARIFICATIONS. I THINK THAT IS AS IMPORTANT IN DETERMINING WHAT WE DO HERE. THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR MORSE. THANKS. YEAH, I KNOW I APPRECIATE COUNCILLOR KONGE'S COMMENT OR QUESTION AND THE ANSWER TO IT, I MEAN, I THINK IN LOOKING AT THE LAND ITSELF, I MEAN, IT IS APPORTIONED OFF AS A LOT, BUT IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT IT AS MS. ALLOOLOO POINTED OUT, THERE IS KIND OF A CLIFF FACE THERE. AND SO THE PORTION THAT IS BEING REQUESTED IS A PORTION THAT I DON'T THINK IS REALLY MARKETABLE AS A PIECE OF LAND UNTO ITSELF, IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE TAKING A LOT HERE THAT SOMEONE COULD BUILD A HOUSE ON OR ANYTHING ELSE COULD BE DONE WITH. SO THE SUBSTANDARD LOT COMPARISON, I THINK, IS AN APPROPRIATE ONE. I THINK. FOR THAT REASON, IT'S STILL UNCLEAR TO ME WHY ADMINISTRATION WAS RESISTANT TO THIS, AND I GUESS THE QUESTION I'VE GOT TO ASK AGAIN IS WHAT EXACTLY IS ADMINISTRATION PROPOSING AS A SEPARATE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM? BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I WILL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE COULD SPEAK TO THIS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION. SO AS WE STATED BEFORE, THIS WOULD BE A PERFECT EXAMPLE WHERE A HOME BASED BUSINESS HAS GROWN AND EXPANDED THROUGH TIME AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT IT WOULD INCLUDE A FULL REZONING OF THE PROPERTY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE USE AS IT IS NOW. AS THE PROPOSAL NO LONGER MEETS THE CURRENT ZONING BYLAW DEFINITION FOR A HOME BASED BUSINESS AND SO IN SELLING A PORTION OF LAND TO AN ADJACENT PROPERTY TO CORRECT AN ENCROACHMENT. TO PROPERLY ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEING USED ON THE PROPERTY, WE [01:20:04] WOULD ALSO REQUIRE A REZONING OF THE PROPERTY. AND THAT HASN'T BEEN APPLIED FOR SORRY, I'LL CLARIFY THAT. OK, THANK YOU. THAT IS THE CLEAREST AND SUCCINCT [INAUDIBLE], THAT'S NOT A WORD, BUT THE CLEAREST AND MOST SUCCINCT ANSWER I'VE GOTTEN SO FAR. AND FINALLY GIVES ME A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY ON THIS ONE. I DON'T KNOW WHY I FOUND THAT MEMO SO CONFUSING. ANY TIME WE TALK ABOUT ZONING, I FIND IT TO BE ONE OF THE MORE DIFFICULT THINGS THAT WE LOOK AT IN TERMS OF FIGURING THINGS OUT. THIS A LITTLE BIT OF A TOUGH ONE FOR ME BECAUSE I'M A BIT RELUCTANT TO DENY THE REQUEST BECAUSE I AM GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF IT, I ACTUALLY DO THINK IT'S REASONABLE FOR MS. ALLOOLOO TO APPROACH THE CITY FOR THIS PIECE OF LAND. AS I STATED PREVIOUSLY, I DON'T THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S MARKETABLE ON ITS OWN. AND EVEN IF SOMEONE WERE TO PURCHASE IT, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE ECONOMIC TO BLAST THAT CLIFF DOWN TO THE POINT WHERE IT'S LEVEL WITH THE LAND THAT MS. ALLOOLOO IS ASKING FOR. SO I DON'T THINK IT COULD ACTUALLY BE USED BY SOMEONE IF THEY WERE EVEN TO PURCHASE THE LOT THAT'S ADJACENT THERE. AND SO IT SEEMS TO ME A REASONABLE REQUEST. IT ALSO SEEMS TO ME THAT ADMINISTRATION IS PUTTING FORWARD AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE BUSINESS OWNER, HOW THIS COULD BE DONE. IF I'M MISTAKEN ABOUT THAT, SOMEONE PLEASE CORRECT ME. SO IT'S JUST DIFFICULT TO KIND OF VOTE FOR A DENIAL OF SOMETHING THAT I'M SOMEWHAT SUPPORTIVE OF. I'M WONDERING IF PERHAPS REFERRING THIS BACK TO ADMINISTRATION IS APPROPRIATE OR IS THE DENIAL REQUIRED IN ORDER TO TAKE THIS APPLICATION TO THE NEXT STEP? PERHAPS THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION. MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION, AND CERTAINLY WE HAVE WORKED WITH MS. ALLOOLOO, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH MS. ALLOOLOO TO SEE IF THERE IS A PATH FORWARD. I'LL ASK MS. WHITE IF SHE COULD SPEAK TO WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON IN THAT REGARD. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO, YEAH, WE ARE WILLING TO TAKE THIS BACK IF THAT IS COUNCIL'S DIRECTION AND SEE IF WE CAN COME TO A SOLUTION THAT MEETS THE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS OWNER, AS WELL AS IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT RULES AND REGULATIONS WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY. THE OTHER OPTION, COUNCILLOR MORSE, COULD BE TO TABLE THIS UNTIL AFTER THE ZONING BYLAW HAS BEEN AFTER THE ZONING BYLAWS APPROVED. SO IF THAT LAND IS ZONED THROUGH THE ZONING BYLAW PROCESS, WHICH STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 27TH POTENTIALLY SECOND READING WOULD HAPPEN DECEMBER 13TH AND IT WOULD BE LIKE THE NEW YEAR TO GET THE FINAL APPROVAL IF THIS LOT IS REZONED TO BE A MIXED USE AND SUPPORTS THE BUSINESS. FOLLOWING THAT, THIS COULD BE REMOVED FROM THE TABLE AND VOTED ON AT THAT TIME. SO SOMETHING FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER PROCEDURALLY. THANK YOU. YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT SUGGESTION, AND I THINK THAT SOUNDS LIKE A REASONABLE COURSE OF ACTION, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN MOVING THAT WE TABLE IT THEN. THANK YOU, AND YEAH, TO NOTE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A DEADLINE ON THE TABLE, WE WOULD JUST TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE ONCE THE ZONING BYLAW IS APPROVED OR PENDING. WELL, NO, WE SHOULD TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE BECAUSE IF IT DOESN'T GET REZONED, WE SHOULD TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE AND DENY IT. IF IT GETS REZONED, THEN TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE AND HAVE THE DISCUSSION ON WHETHER TO SELL THE LAND OR NOT. JUST A BIT FURTHER CLARITY, BUT THE MOTION RIGHT NOW IS TO TABLE THIS. SO COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS SECONDED ANY DISCUSSION ON THE. COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. AND THIS IS JUST A DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO TABLE. SO COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. YEAH, I VERY MUCH AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENTS THAT COUNCILLOR MORSE HAD ECHOED THERE. I DON'T SEE THIS AS BEING A DEVELOPABLE LAND, AND I CERTAINLY COMMEND THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR THEIR DESIRE TO GET THEIR LOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE BYLAWS. SO YEAH, FOR THOSE REASONS, I WOULD VERY MUCH SUPPORT TABLING THIS AND UNTIL THE TIME THAT IT CAN BE HOPEFULLY APPROVED. NOW MY OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE WOULD THAT THEN WOULD WE NEED TO RECOMMEND TO THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT THEY ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THAT CERTAIN THINGS WOULD NEED TO BE STATED AT THAT PUBLIC HEARING TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS DOES GO THROUGH? YEAH, IF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS LOOKING TO TO STAY THERE AND DOESN'T FIT THE [01:25:07] DEFINITION OF A HOME BASED BUSINESS, WHICH IS TWO ADULTS THAT LIVE ON THE PROPERTY. THEY SHOULD COME TO THE ZONING BYLAW AND REQUEST THAT IT BE ZONED SUITABLE TO THE BUSINESS NEEDS, WHETHER THAT'S ADDING COMMERCIAL RECREATION AS A DISCRETIONARY USE TO R1 OR WHETHER IT'S MAKING THAT LOT AS A OLD TOWN MIXED USE, BUT MS. BASSI-KELLETT. POINT FROM ADMINISTRATION OR PERSPECTIVE FROM ADMIN ON THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL ASK MS. WHITE TO WEIGH IN. THANK YOU. SO I GUESS A FEW POINTS TO JUST CLARIFY THE SITUATION. THE PROPERTY THAT IS BEING PROPOSED FOR ADDITIONS IS NOT A SEPARATE PARCEL OF LAND. AND SO I WOULD QUESTION AND I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK THIS UP TO ENSURE I'M CORRECT THE ABILITY OF A PRIVATE CITIZEN TO ASK FOR A REZONING OF LAND THAT IS OWNED BY THE MUNICIPALITY CURRENTLY. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S A FACTUAL PART OF THAT PROCESS. AND IF THAT ALSO WOULD ALLOW THE OPPORTUNITY FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS TO BECOME AWARE OF THE SITUATION. AN INDIVIDUAL ZONING WOULD ALLOW THAT PUBLIC PROCESS INITIATED BY MS. ALLOOLOO AND ALLOW THE PROCESS OF NOTIFICATION TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS AS ANY OTHER ZONING APPLICATION WOULD. SO THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT PROCESSES BEING DISCUSSED, WHICH I'M NOT CONFIDENT ARE INTERCHANGEABLE. SORRY MS. WHITE I GUESS IT WAS RECOMMENDING THAT THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT 4702 ANDERSON THOMSON BOULEVARD, HER CURRENT PROPERTY BE REZONED BECAUSE THEN THE BUSINESS WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING BYLAW AND THEN COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER WHETHER TO SELL AND THEN IT WOULD REQUIRE THE SALE PLUS REZONING OF THAT LOT. JUST COMMENTS FROM ADMIN ON THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND I THINK I'LL ASK MS. WHITE TO COMMENT ON THIS AS THE OPTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED TO DATE, THERE'S DEFINITELY ROOM FOR US TO EXTEND THOSE DISCUSSIONS. MS. WHITE? GREAT, WE DEFINITELY COULD HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS, ESPECIALLY FOR THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY OWNED BY MS. ALLOOLOO. COULDN'T, ULTIMATELY, COULDN'T WE JUST ALSO JUST VOTE IN FAVOR OR SORRY, OPPOSED TO THE MOTION TODAY, WHICH WOULD IN ESSENCE GRANT HER THE LAND AND THEN DURING THE REZONING PROCESS, THEN SHE COULD BRING THE ENTIRETY OF THE LOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE NEW ZONING BYLAW THROUGH PUBLIC HEARING. BY VOTING AGAINST THIS, WE'RE NOT VOTING FOR IT. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO BRING THAT FORWARD AS A NOTICE OF MOTION OR BRING IT FORWARD TO GPC FOR DISCUSSION AND THEN TO COUNCIL NOVEMBER 22ND. IT'S ONE OF THOSE CAN'T DO IT DIRECT. YEAH. ANYTHING FURTHER, COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS? NO, I THINK NOPE, NOT FOR NOW. COUNCILLOR MORGAN. THANK YOU YOUR WORSHIP. SO THE WAY I SEE THIS IS. LIKE, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO EVENTUALLY THIS, YOU KNOW, BUSINESS OWNER ACQUIRING THIS LAND AND PAYING TAXES ON IT. BUT MY CONCERN IS THAT IF WE DO THIS PART FIRST BY ALLOWING HER TO PURCHASE THE LAND AND THEN IT BECOMES PART OF HER RESIDENTIAL LOT WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THIS NEW SLIVER OF LOT, IT'S GOING TO BE ENTIRELY USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES FOR THE BUSINESS AND THAT. YOU KNOW, MUCH OF THE HOME OR THE RESIDENTIAL LOT IS CURRENTLY USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, TOO, AND SO IN THEORY. IF THAT LOT WAS PURCHASED AND THEN BECOMES PART OF THE RESIDENTIAL LOT NOW, IN THEORY, SHE COULD IN THE FUTURE APPLY FOR IT TO CHANGE ZONING, BUT THERE'S NO INCENTIVE THERE ANYMORE BECAUSE SHE'S GOT WHAT SHE WANTS, WHICH IS THAT THE LOT IS NOW BIGGER AND CONSOLIDATED. SO. TO ME, THE OBJECTIVE HERE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO IS COMPLIANCE WITH THIS [01:30:02] BUSINESS, BOTH IN TERMS OF ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IT'S NOT CURRENTLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULES AROUND HOME BASED BUSINESSES, IT'S BIGGER THAN THAT. AND ALSO ENSURING THAT THERE WILL BE COMPLIANCE IN THE FUTURE IN TERMS OF ENCROACHMENT ON OTHER PUBLIC LANDS ON ROADWAYS, ENCROACHMENT ON NEIGHBORS PROPERTIES, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO TO ME, THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS GETTING TO THIS ULTIMATE COMPLIANCE IS NOT ALLOWING THIS TO BECOME PART OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. WHEN WE'RE KIND OF DENYING THE REALITY THAT THIS IS NOT BEING USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, SO FIRST WE HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, ADDRESS THE ZONING ISSUE OR THE ACTUAL USE OF THAT. AND THEN HOPEFULLY THAT CAN LEAD TO YOU KNOW, PURCHASE OF THIS SLIVER, THIS ADJOINING LOT, BUT AS A COMMERCIAL OR MIXED COMMERCIAL OR WHATEVER, IT'S GOING TO BE CALLED IN THE ZONING, JUST RECOGNIZING WHAT IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE USED FOR. MY CONCERN WITH ALLOWING THIS PURCHASE NOW WOULD BE THAT IT'S THE END OF THE ROAD AND THERE ISN'T ANY PRESSURE OR INCENTIVE TO REQUIRE FURTHER COMPLIANCE IN THE FUTURE, IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE. SO THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION AND WHY I'LL SUPPORT THE ADMINISTRATION'S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THIS PURCHASE AT THIS POINT. AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I'M NOT AGAINST PURCHASE OF THE LAND IN PRINCIPLE, BUT I THINK IT MATTERS HOW THAT LAND TO BE PURCHASED IS ZONED AND HOW THE PROPERTY IS RECOGNIZED AS A BUSINESS, AND IT HAS IMPACTS OF A BUSINESS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WE NEED TO JUST RECOGNIZE IT AS SUCH IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU. WOULD YOU SUPPORT COUNCILLOR MORSE'S MOTION TO TABLE THIS AND THEN TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION AFTER THE ZONING BYLAW BECAUSE IF 4702 REMAINS RESIDENTIAL AFTER THE ZONING BYLAW, THEN YOU KNOW, DOES THE APPLICANT EVEN WANT TO PURCHASE THIS SLIVER OF LAND IF IT'S REZONED TO BE MIXED USE, THEN IT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THAT LAND PURCHASE. SO ARE YOU OK WITH THE PROCESS OF TABLING IT TO BE DISCUSSED AFTER THE ZONING BYLAW IS APPROVED? YES, AS LONG AS IF WE TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE LATER AND REVISIT THEN THE MOTION WILL THEN REFLECT NEW CIRCUMSTANCES AROUND THE ZONING. I'M JUST CONFUSED WHAT GETS SORT OF CARRIED THROUGH OR GRANDFATHERED IF WE JUST TABLE A MOTION AS IT IS NOW? IF WE TABLED THE MOTION, IT DOES COME BACK AS IT'S WORDED, SO THE OTHER OPTION COULD BE THAT IT IS JUST REFERRED BACK TO ADMINISTRATION AND BROUGHT TO COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION AFTER THE ZONING BYLAW, I GUESS, OR THIS IS DENIED AND THE APPLICANT BRINGS IT FORWARD AFTER THE ZONING BYLAW. SO SO DOES THIS PROCEDURALLY, IF WE DENY THIS NOW, IF WE ACCEPT THE ADMINISTRATION'S RECOMMENDATION, I KNOW WE CAN'T GO BACK ON A DECISION LATER ON, AT LEAST WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME. IF THE INTEREST IN PURCHASING THE LOT IS BROUGHT BACK LATER, BUT UNDER COMMERCIAL ZONING, DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE'RE REPEATING THIS DECISION OR HAVING TO REVISIT THIS MOTION OR IT'S CONSIDERED A WHOLE DIFFERENT THING BECAUSE IT'S UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES? I JUST DON'T WANT TO PREVENT US IF WE DO DENY THIS NOW. I DON'T WANT TO PREVENT US FROM CONSIDERING LATER A PURCHASE UNDER DIFFERENT ZONING, UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEP, FOR SURE. MS. BASSI-KELLETT. I AM GOING TO SEE IF THERE IS SOME PROCEDURAL ADVICE THAT WE COULD GET FROM MS. GILLARD OR MS. THISTLE. ON THE BEST PATH FORWARD. OH, HI, SORRY, MY COMPUTER'S FREEZING UP, SO I'M HAVING SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY. SO THE QUESTION IS WHETHER TO TABLE THIS MOTION RIGHT NOW OR TO REFER IT BACK TO ADMINISTRATION OR TO DENY IT. AND WHETHER IT CAN COME FORWARD IN SAY THREE MONTHS TIME, I BELIEVE THAT SIX [01:35:06] MONTH WINDOW IS ACTUALLY JUST THE ZONING BYLAW, BUT MS. GILLARD ADVICE ON TABLING, REFERRING BACK TO ADMINISTRATION OR DENYING TODAY AND THE APPLICANT COMING BACK TO COUNCIL AT A FUTURE DATE. YEAH, I WAS GOING TO LOOK UP THE MOTION, WHETHER ANOTHER MOTION COULD BE BROUGHT FORWARD, I'M NOT CONFIDENT IT'S 100 PERCENT ONLY WITH REGARDS TO THE ZONING BYLAW. SO THERE MIGHT BE APPETITE TO REFER IT BACK TO ADMINISTRATION, IF THAT'S THE WILL OF COUNCIL TO LOOK AT THIS FURTHER TO FIND OUT THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION. MS. WHITE HAS ALSO INDICATED THAT SHE WOULD NEED TO LOOK INTO SOME ISSUES SURROUNDING THIS MATTER AS WELL, SO IT MIGHT BE PRUDENT TO REFER IT BACK TO ADMINISTRATION. COUNCILLOR MORGAN ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO, I MEAN, I'M FINE IF THE SAFEST OR CLEANEST WAY AT THIS POINT IS TO REFER BACK TO ADMINISTRATION OR TABLING, I'M NOT CLEAR WHAT THE DIFFERENCE AT THIS POINT WILL BE. IT MIGHT BE BETTER TO REFER BACK BECAUSE OF THAT WHOLE YOU CAN'T DO A DIRECT NEGATIVE. COUNCILLOR MORSE, WOULD YOU BE OK REFERRING THIS, WHICH WAS YOUR ORIGINAL INTENTION, BUT REFERRING IT BACK TO ADMINISTRATION? I'D BE PERFECTLY FINE WITH THAT. YEAH. WE HAVE A SECONDARY TO REFER BACK TO ADMINISTRATION COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS DISCUSSION ON REFERRING IT BACK TO ADMINISTRATION. COUNCILLOR KONGE. THANK YOU YOUR WORSHIP CAN WE REFER IT BACK AND I DON'T REALLY WANT ADMINISTRATION LOOKING AT THIS UNTIL WE'VE COMPLETED THE ZONING BYLAW BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF CHICKEN BEFORE THE EGG. THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING. IS THAT A POSSIBILITY THAT WE REFER IT BACK TO ADMINISTRATION, BUT ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T LOOK AT IT UNTIL AFTER THE NEW ZONING BYLAW IS ENACTED? MS.. WE HAVE REACHED OUR 90 MINUTE MARK, SO WHY DON'T WE TAKE THAT QUESTION UNDER ADVISEMENT AND ANSWER IT WHEN WE COME BACK AT 8:48 P.M.. MS. BASSI-KELLETT [INAUDIBLE] DISCUSS IT, PERFECT 8:48 P.M.. AND MS. BASSI-KELLETT, WERE YOU ABLE TO WE'LL JUST RECONVENE OUR MEETING. I WILL TURN IT OVER TO YOU TO ANSWER COUNCILLOR KONGE'S QUESTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO I THINK WE'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF A CONFERENCE DURING THE BREAK AND SENDING THIS BACK TO ADMINISTRATION WOULD LIKELY BE THE BEST WAY TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO SEE DONE, WHICH IS TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON OPTIONS BETWEEN ADMINISTRATION AND MS. ALLOOLOO AND THEN BE ABLE TO, OF COURSE, BRING BACK THE LAND AT HER EXISTING LOT FOR ZONING IN THE FUTURE. MS. GILLARD, YOU WERE GOING TO SPEAK TO OR SORRY? THAT'S ONE OF THE OPTIONS THAT MAY BE OUT THERE MAY BE OTHERS AS WELL. BUT DEBBIE, YOU WERE GOING TO SPEAK TO THE BEST OPTION HERE WITH REFERRING IT BACK TO ADMINISTRATION. YEAH, I THINK IF COUNCIL DEFEATS THE MOTION THIS EVENING, THEN YOU WOULD BE LOOKING AT A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THAT MOTION, SO SOMEBODY WHO VOTED WITH THE MAJORITY WOULD HAVE TO BRING IT FORWARD. AND THERE IS A TIME RESTRAINT WITH THAT OF SIX MONTHS. SO I THINK IT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE TO REFER THIS BACK TO ADMINISTRATION SO THAT THEY CAN WORK OUT FURTHER DETAILS WITH THE PROPONENT. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? I AM IN SUPPORT OF THAT OPTION AS WELL. I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IF 4702, ANDERSON THOMSON BOULEVARD REMAINS RESIDENTIAL AND IT CAN ONLY HAVE A HOME BASED BUSINESS WHICH IS ONLY TWO INDIVIDUALS THEN LIVE IN THE HOME. THEN THE APPLICANT MIGHT NOT WANT TO BUY THAT PIECE OF LAND TO REALLY JUST CREATE A BIGGER PARCEL OF LAND FOR JUST A HOME. SO IF IT IS REZONED TO MIXED USE, THEN PERHAPS THE APPLICANT WILL WANT TO PURCHASE THIS PIECE OF LAND. SO YES, I THINK THE FIRST STEP IS TO SORT OUT THE ZONING PROCESS ON 4702 [01:40:01] WHICH CAN OCCUR AT THE DISCUSSION ON SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 27TH AT THE STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARINGS. SO TO THE MOTION OF REFERRING THIS BACK TO ADMINISTRATION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AND THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. OK, SO THE NEXT PART HERE IS COUNCILLOR MORGAN, IF YOU WANT TO MOVE THAT WE MOVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. OK, SO I MOVE THAT COUNCILLOR MOVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECONDER COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF MOVING INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. COUNCILLOR MORSE, ARE YOU IN FAVOR. YEP. THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY SO WE ARE NOW IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. COUNCILLOR MORGAN, IF YOU'D LIKE TO MOVE, WE AMEND THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE NOVEMBER 1ST GPC REPORTS. AM I [INAUDIBLE] SOMETHING? IF YOU MOVE THAT COUNCIL, ADOPT THE PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY SO. I MOVE IT. OK. YEAH. SO BUT AM I MOVING THAT WE MAKE AN AMENDMENT OR AM I MOVING THE AMENDED SUGGESTION? YOU'RE MOVING THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY, WHICH IS THAT WE AMEND THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE NOVEMBER 1ST GPC REPORT. OK, SO I MOVE THAT COUNCIL AMEND THE RECOMMENDATION FROM NOVEMBER 1ST GPC AND ADOPT THE PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY. CORRECT. YES. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECONDER. COUNCILLOR MORSE, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE ADVISABILITY TO AMEND THE RECOMMENDATION? THIS ISN'T TO DEBATE WHETHER TO SUPPORT THE POLICY. IT'S JUST IF COUNCIL IS IN SUPPORT OF THAT, THE NEXT STEP WILL GO TO COUNCIL AND WE WILL BRING THIS FORWARD AND THEN WE CAN LAUNCH INTO DEBATE ON THE PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY AND WHETHER PEOPLE ARE SUPPORTIVE OR NOT. SO JUST ON AMENDING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE NOVEMBER 1ST GPC ANY QUESTIONS. COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS DID YOU STILL HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT? NO. COUNCILLOR KONGE. THANK YOU. SO IF THIS PASSES, THEN WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT WE WILL ADOPT THE PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY. WILL WE BE ABLE TO MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THAT AT THAT TIME? OR IS THIS GOING TO BE A YES OR NO ON THAT ONLY? NO, NO. IT'S IF COUNCIL IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS COUNCILLOR MORGAN NEXT [INAUDIBLE] MOVE THAT WE RISE FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. AND WE'LL GO TO COUNCIL. WE WILL COUNCILLOR MORGAN WILL MOVE THAT COUNCIL, ADOPT THE PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY. AND THEN IT'S JUST LIKE A REGULAR MOTION WHERE PEOPLE CAN MAKE AMENDMENTS AND PEOPLE CAN VOTED AGAINST IT. OK. AND I KNOW YOU EXPANDED IT GPC BUT CAN YOU EXPLAIN AGAIN WHY WE NEED TO DO THIS INSTEAD OF AMENDING THE ONE THAT'S ALREADY BEFORE US. AS PER COUNCIL PROCEDURES, YOU CAN'T SUGGEST A DIRECT NEGATIVE. SO THE MOTION IN COUNCIL PACKAGE IS THAT COUNCIL NOT ADOPT THE PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY. SO YOU CAN'T AMEND IT TO SAY THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY BECAUSE THAT'S A DIRECT NEGATIVE. AND IF YOU. IF COUNCIL WANTED TO SUPPORT THE PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY, THEN VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SO THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO BRING THIS DISCUSSION I GUESS FOR CONSIDERATION AT A FUTURE DATE. OK, THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN FOR THAT EXPLANATION FOR THE PUBLIC WHO ARE STILL WITH US. IT IS A TON TO LEARN ABOUT COUNCIL PROCEDURES BYLAW AFTER THIS LAST ONE AND THIS ONE, OUR MEETINGS GENERALLY AREN'T SO PROCEDURALLY COUNCIL PROCEDURE BYLAW HEAVY. SO TO THE MOTION THAT WE AMEND THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE NOVEMBER 1ST GPC REPORTS AND THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AND THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILLOR MORGAN, IF YOU'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE RISE AND REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. I MOVE THAT WE RISE AND REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. [01:45:01] THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECONDER. COUNCILLOR SILVERIO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AND THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. SO WE ARE NOW BACK INTO COUNCIL, SO COUNCILLOR MORGAN, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO. SO NOW WE'RE ON QUOTE UNQUOTE NUMBER 20. [20. Councillor Morgan moves, Councillor ____________ seconds, That Council not adopt the Proof of Vaccine Policy and direct Administration to submit an Application to Vary from Public Health Order Requirements for each City facility to exceed the established gathering limits based on current COVID‐19 protocols such as the requirement to wear face coverings, physical distancing, and hand sanitizing.] IF YOU'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT COUNCIL, ADOPT THE PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY. OK, I MOVE THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY. THANK YOU, DO I HAVE A SECONDER. COUNCILLOR MORSE AND NOW IT'S LIKE A GENERAL COUNCIL MEETING, SO IT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION IF FOLKS WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT. COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. SORRY, MY COMPUTER'S GOING FLAKY ON ME AT THIS MOMENT. AM I BACK. YEP WE CAN HEAR YOU OK. I'M SO SORRY, MY SCREENS ACTUALLY GLITCHING AND DOING ALL SORTS OF STUFF, SO I'M HOPING THAT YOU CAN KIND OF HEAR ME. CERTAINLY. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. IT'S CERTAINLY BEEN AN EXCITING WEEK OUT THERE ON THE EMAIL WITH THE COUNCIL, AS I HAD SORT OF SAID IN MY THOUGHTS AT GPC THIS AFTERNOON. CERTAINLY WANTING TO PRESENT SOMETHING TO THE REST OF THE COUNCIL TO SEE IF WE CAN MAYBE GET TO AN AGREEMENT ON SOMETHING THAT IS MAYBE A BIT MORE PALATABLE TO MORE PEOPLE IN YELLOWKNIFE. SO WHEN I WAS SORT OF DOING MY RESEARCH IN THIS, I DID LOOK TO THE N.W.T. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROOF OF VACCINATION. AND YOU KNOW, IT BECAME VERY CLEAR TO ME THAT THEY HAD HAD SOME VERY SET CRITERIA ON WHAT CONSTITUTES A GOOD POLICY WHEN IT COMES TO PROOF OF VACCINATION. I'M SORRY, MY SCREEN'S GOING CRAZY HERE. NOT FOR US. YOU'RE PERFECTLY FINE. OKAY. EXCELLENT. EXCELLENT. SO FIRST OFF, YOU KNOW, HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION HAS STATED THAT THE POLICY MUST BE EVIDENCE BASED, AND I THINK THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT VACCINES ARE EFFECTIVE IN THE REDUCTION OF THE SPREAD AND THE SEVERITY OF COVID, YOU KNOW, NECESSARY. CERTAINLY, THE CPHO WHO HAS NOT GIVEN US THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO PROOF OF TESTING AND PROOF OF TESTING WOULD BE DIFFICULT AND COSTLY FOR THE CITY TO DO SO. I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS FEELS THIS IS NECESSARY. THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION THAT IT MUST BE PRIVATE, AND I'M SURE THAT ADMINISTRATION WILL DO THEIR BEST EFFORT TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S THIS PROCESS IS PRIVATE. THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT I HAD AND NOW HAVE WITH THE POLICY AS PRESENTED, IS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE TIME BASED OR REVIEWED REGULARLY. SO TO THAT POINT, I HAD WRITTEN MY TWO AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PROPOSED, BUT I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING ON MY SCREEN, SO I'LL TRY TO DO IT FROM MEMORY. I BELIEVE IN POLICY. THE POLICY POINT NUMBER TWO WAS THAT COUNCIL APPROVE A VACCINE POLICY TO ALL THOSE ABLE TO TAKE THE COVID 19 VACCINE. I WOULD. MY FIRST PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THAT POLICY WOULD BE TO HAVE IT BE 12+. MY SECOND AMENDMENT WOULD BE THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDING MAYBE POINT NUMBER FIVE TO THE EXISTING POLICY AND THAT TYING THIS POLICY DIRECTLY BACK TO THE DECLARATION OF THE N.W.T. WIDE PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY. SO WE COULD STATE IT IN A WAY THAT WOULD BE. AND THIS POLICY EXPIRES AT THE TERMINATION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY DECLARED UNDER THE NWT HEALTH ACT. AND I BELIEVE WITH THOSE TWO CHANGES, I COULD CERTAINLY SUPPORT AND GET BEHIND THIS PARTICULAR MANDATE. THANK YOU, MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THE ADVISABILITY, YES, I APPRECIATE POINT FIVE THAT MAKES SENSE COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS, BUT RECOMMENDATION FROM ADMIN ON WHERE TO ADD THAT THIS POLICY IS ONLY FOR INDIVIDUALS 12 AND UP. AND THEN I GUESS. WHETHER WE NEED TO WORDSMITH THAT OR WHETHER ADMIN WILL ADD IT TO THE [01:50:05] APPLICABLE SECTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH YOUR WORSHIP, WHAT WE WOULD PROPOSE TO DO IN THIS CASE IS WHERE WE AND I'M SORRY, I'M JUST TRYING TO PULL IT UP HERE WHERE WE HAVE ELIGIBILITY ABOUT APPLYING TO FULLY VACCINATED PERSONS. THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD REPLACE WITH THOSE WHO ARE 12 AND OLDER. SO WE WOULD LOOK AT DOING IT IN THAT PLACE, AND IF I CAN TO THE OTHER POINT THAT COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS HAS RAISED, WE ARE VERY WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT, BUT PERHAPS TO CONSIDER WHEN THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER IS LIFTED AS OPPOSED TO THE EMERGENCY, AS THE EMERGENCY HAS BEEN EXCEEDINGLY LONG IN THE TOOTH AND BEEN AROUND FOR QUITE SOME TIME, AND THE ORDER IS CERTAINLY SPECIFIC TO OCCUPANCY AND NUMBERS WITHIN FACILITIES. THANK YOU. WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO THAT, COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS? YES, MADAM CHAIR, THANK YOU FOR EXPRESSING THAT AGAIN, MY SCREEN ISN'T UP. SO YES, I'D BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT. THE CURRENT ORDER. OK, SO IT'S THAT'S THE POLICY IS ONLY FOR INDIVIDUALS 12 AND UP AND THAT THERE'S A CLAUSE ON WHEN THE POLICY IS RESCINDED THAT STATES THE POLICY IS RESCINDED WHEN THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER IS LIFTED. IF COUNCIL IS OPEN TO THAT, WE CAN HAVE A SECONDER FOR BOTH AND VOTE ON THEM TOGETHER, IF COUNCIL HAS A PREFERENCE FOR SEPARATING THEM, WE CAN DO ONE MOTION AND THEN THE NEXT. DO WE HAVE A SECONDER TO GROUP THE TWO ITEMS. COUNCILLOR MORGAN IS COUNCIL OKAY, IF WE DISCUSS AS A JOINT AS OPPOSED TO SEPARATING THE MOTION. COUNCILLOR MORSE THEN COUNCILLOR KONGE. THANKS. I SEE THEM AS PRETTY DISTINCT ISSUES AND WOULD PREFER TO DEBATE THEM SEPARATELY AS I THINK I MIGHT EVEN VOTE DIFFERENTLY ON THE SEPARATE ISSUES, SO I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER TO DEBATE THEM SEPARATELY AS OPPOSED TO A PACKAGE. THANKS. OK. SO WE WILL START WITH THE POLICY IS FOR RESIDENTS 12 AND UP. OPENING THAT UP TO DISCUSSION, SORRY I'D HAD A SECONDER WHICH WAS COUNCILLOR MORGAN AND COUNCILLOR MORGAN. YOU'RE OK SECONDING BOTH OF THEM. SO COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT ITEM FIRST? AND THEN WE'LL GO TO COUNCILLOR MORSE. YES, I WOULD THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I CAN KIND OF ANTICIPATE SOME OF THE PUSHBACK THAT WE MAY HAVE ON THIS MY POINT FOR BRINGING IT UP IS THAT FOR AS FAR AS WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, THE VACCINE HAS BEEN TESTED AND APPROVED FOR USE IN INDIVIDUALS 12 AND UP. ONE OF THE BIG ASPECTS OF THIS MANDATE THAT I FEARED IS THAT. YOU KNOW, IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME, AND IT'S BEEN INDICATED IN THE MEDIA THAT THE VACCINE WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR CHILDREN FIVE TO 12. AND YOU KNOW, AT THAT POINT, IT'S NOT VOTING ON SOMETHING WITH EYES WIDE OPEN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SENTIMENT OF PARENTS WOULD BE AT THAT POINT, AND I SEE THAT AS A SEPARATE DISCUSSION. I WOULD ALSO CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE ADMINISTRATION THAT IF THAT WAS TO TAKE PLACE, THAT WE WOULD JUST HAVE A SEPARATE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD EXPAND THE MANDATE TO THAT GROUP. BUT I THINK THAT THERE'D BE A LOT OF DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE MAY HAVE WHEN IT COMES TO INDIVIDUALS THAT WOULD BE, SAY, FIVE TO 12. SO THAT'S THE REASONING BEHIND THE 12 PLUS, YOU KNOW, THOSE VACCINES ARE ALREADY OUT THERE, SO THEY'RE CURRENTLY BEING USED WITHIN THOSE POPULATIONS, AND THAT IS WHAT WE KNOW. CERTAINLY HAVING A POLICY THAT WOULD THEN COVER UNKNOWN IS SOMETHING THAT I JUST I DON'T THINK I COULD GET COMFORTABLE WITH. SO AGAIN, THIS AMENDMENT IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US AS A COUNCIL TO MAYBE QUELL SOME OF OUR CONCERNS AND GET ALL ON BOARD WITH A MANDATE THAT WE CAN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR MORSE. THANK YOU. ON THIS ONE, I'M IN IN DISAGREEMENT WITH THE MOTION. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE CONSIDERATIONS AS TO WHO SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR VACCINES THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE BY BY GROUPS OF SCIENTISTS AND [01:55:04] RESEARCHERS ADVISING CPHO'S AND ULTIMATELY CPHO'S MAKING THOSE KIND OF CALLS. IT'S REALLY NOT UP TO COUNCIL, A MUNICIPAL, ANY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL TO BE MAKING CALLS LIKE THAT. SO I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE VERY PECULIAR FOR COUNCIL TO WADE INTO POLICY MAKING OF THAT KIND AS OPPOSED TO FOLLOWING A PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER. AT THAT POINT, WE'RE KIND OF AUGMENTING WHAT THE CPHO HAS DONE, AND I DON'T EVEN REALLY KNOW THAT WE'RE ABLE TO COMPREHEND THE IMPLICATIONS OF DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO I THINK THAT JUST LEAVING THE POLICY AS ANYONE ELIGIBLE AS PER THE CPHO'S DIRECTION IS JUST SO MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE AND SIMPLER FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER. NONE OF US REALLY HAVE THE INFORMATION OR ABILITY TO BE DETERMINING WHETHER VACCINES ARE SAFE FOR CHILDREN. THAT'S JUST WAY, WAY OUTSIDE OF OUR PAY GRADE AND AREAS OF EXPERTISE. SO YEAH, I WON'T SUPPORT THIS. I JUST THINK I UNDERSTAND WHERE COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS IS COMING FROM, BUT I THINK THAT ULTIMATELY IT'S JUST IT REALLY IS UP TO THE CPHO AND DOCTORS, ET CETERA, TO BE ADVISING PEOPLE ON WHETHER THEY'RE ELIGIBLE FOR AND IT'S RECOMMENDED THAT THEY HAVE VACCINES. THERE'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF RESEARCH THAT GOES BEHIND DECISIONS LIKE THAT. IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT A FEELING OR A DETERMINATION MADE BY LAYPERSONS ON HEALTH ISSUES. THANKS. THANKS. AND TO NOTE, A PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER IS ONLY FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE 12 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER, SO RIGHT NOW, THAT IS THE ONLY THING THAT CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICERS RECOMMENDING FOR PROOF OF VACCINE VERIFICATION, COUNCILLOR MORGAN. YEAH. SO I THINK THERE ARE REASONS WHY THIS AMENDMENT MAKES SENSE. YOU KNOW, BEYOND THAT, THE CURRENT PUBLIC HEALTH ORDERS SPECIFICALLY ONLY APPLY TO 12 AND UP EVEN LOGISTICALLY IF WE HAVE ANOTHER POLICY THAT ANYONE ELIGIBLE MUST HAVE A VACCINE TO ENTER FACILITIES. YOU KNOW, AT THE MOMENT, WE'VE HAD AT LEAST. YOU KNOW, NINE MONTHS FOR PEOPLE 12 AND UP, WELL, NOT 12 AND UP. BUT WE'VE HAD MANY MONTHS CHANCE FOR PEOPLE TO GET VACCINATED. BUT IF THE MOMENT WHEN A VACCINE BECOMES AVAILABLE FOR FIVE TO 11S, IF, THEN OUR POLICY APPLIES IMMEDIATELY. OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS NOT THE INTENTION, BUT MY CONCERN WOULD BE THAT IT IMMEDIATELY APPLIES TO FIVE TO 11S. BUT WE NEED TO GIVE PEOPLE TIME TO GET THE VACCINE AND TIME TO CONSULT WITH THEIR DOCTORS. AND SO IT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO JUST MAKE THE POLICY IMMEDIATELY APPLICABLE TO THOSE WHO ARE JUST SUDDENLY GETTING ACCESS OR POTENTIAL ACCESS TO A VACCINE. SO I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE THE POLICY APPLY TO 12 AND UP AND THEN IF THE SITUATION CHANGES IF WE HAVE A VACCINE FOR KIDS THAT AT THAT TIME, YOU KNOW. AND SO IT'S AGAIN WITH THE CPHO ON WHAT WOULD BE ADVISED IN TERMS OF HOW WE APPLY OUR POLICY OUR OCCUPANCY LIMITATIONS TO KIDS, SO I THINK THAT COULD BE A SEPARATE DISCUSSION WITH THE CPHO. CERTAINLY WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE MAKING THAT DECISION JUST ALL ON OUR OWN BASED ON OUR FEELINGS ABOUT VACCINES, BUT I THINK IT IS A SEPARATE DISCUSSION WITH THE CPHO TO BOTH IN TERMS OF. YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE CPHO HAS THOUGHTS ON PROS AND CONS OF EXCLUDING CHILDREN UNDER 12 FROM FACILITIES, OR MAYBE IT'S JUST AS SIMPLY A MATTER OF CONSULTING WITH THE CPHO ON WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE LENGTH OF TIME YOU KNOW, TO WAIT. BUT IN EITHER WAY, I THINK IT DOES REQUIRE A SEPARATE DISCUSSION, SO I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THIS POLICY JUST APPLYING TO 12 AND UP BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER POINTS? COUNCILLOR KONGE. THANK YOU YOUR, WORSHIP. I MEAN, FOR ME, THIS THIS ONE HERE DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE ANYTHING. IF WE HAD SAID THAT THIS POLICY IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO RESIDENTS WHO ARE 18 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER, I THINK I WOULD GET BEHIND THAT. YOU KNOW, I MAINTAIN THAT FOR ME PERSONALLY, THE ACCESS TO OUR FACILITIES FOR CHILDREN IS OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE AND YOU KNOW, I REALLY [02:00:03] BELIEVE THAT THAT'S WHERE FOR ME, IT NEEDS TO BE. AND YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD EVERYBODY WHO CAME TODAY AND MADE PRESENTATIONS, AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S REALLY UNFORTUNATE THAT WE'RE IN THIS POSITION, YOU KNOW. COUNCILLOR MORSE AND MORGAN, THEY KEEP SAYING WE NEED TO DEFER TO THE CPHO. WE NEED TO DEFER TO THE CPHO, BUT YOU KNOW, THEY'VE COME OUT AND THEY'VE SAID, OK, THIS IS WHAT YOU CAN DO. IF YOU WANT TO DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT, THEN YOU NEED TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL PERMISSION. AND, YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO APPLY FOR THAT SPECIAL PERMISSION FOR THE 17 AND UNDER AGE GROUP BECAUSE I THINK THOSE ARE THE KIDS THAT FOR ME, THEY REALLY IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THEY FEEL INCLUDED AND THAT THEY FEEL. YOU KNOW, THE SAME AS THEIR PEERS. SO WHILE I LIKE THE INTENT OF THIS, IT FOR ME DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH TO GET MY SUPPORT. THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR MORSE. I'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU FOR ROUND TWO. SO I'VE GOT COUNCILLOR PAYNE AND THEN COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I'D LIKE TO ECHO COUNCILLOR KONGE'S WORDS. IT'S FOR ME, HAVING YOUTH NOT BE ABLE TO BE A PART OF OUR CITY FACILITIES IS A NO GO FOR ME. YOU KNOW, WE HAD ONE OF OUR SPEAKERS TONIGHT TALK ABOUT HOW HIS DAUGHTER HAS TO MAKE A DECISION AND KEEP IF THIS GOES THROUGH AND KEEP SOME PEOPLE OUT OF HER BIRTHDAY PARTY BECAUSE OF NOT BEING ABLE TO HAVE THE PROPER NUMBERS AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT THIS GROUP OF KIDS ARE GOING TO BE GOING THROUGH UNTIL THIS IS ALL OVER. YEAH, AND LIKE, NIELS SAID AS WELL, LIKE WE DIDN'T ASK TO MAKE THIS DECISION. IT GOT PUSHED UPON US. AND YOU KNOW, NONE OF US ARE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS. WELL, ROMMEL IS I GUESS HE'S A HEALTH PROFESSIONAL, BUT THE REST OF US AREN'T. DR. TAM JUST CAME OUT LAST WEEK. IT WAS MENTIONED BEFORE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF THE COVID CASES IN YOUTH FROM 19 AND YOUNGER HAVE HAD TO BE HOSPITALIZED. AND WE'VE HAD 17 DEATHS IN CANADA SINCE COVID HAS STARTED FROM THE AGE OF 19 AND YOUNGER. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE SCIENCE BEHIND IT. AND I MEAN, THESE ARE THESE ARE NUMBERS THAT'S COMING OUT. AND I THINK THAT. YOU KNOW, FOR ME, YEAH, I WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION GOING FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH YOUR WORSHIP. SO FOR ME, JUST GOING BACK TO THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, I'M JUST KIND OF WONDERING, FIRST OF ALL, MY CONCERN WITH US WERE TO GET WITH THOSE WHO ARE 12 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER IS KIND OF WONDERING HOW WOULD IT AFFECT ANYBODY THAT HAS A MEDICAL EXEMPTION THAT IS OVER 12 YEARS OLD? WOULD WE BE LEAVING THIS TO THE DISCRETION OF FACILITY STAFF? THANK YOU. SO THAT IT WOULD JUST BE ADDED TO THE POLICY, SO THERE'S STILL THE EXEMPTIONS THAT EXIST AT THE END, SO. INDIVIDUALS WITH A MEDICAL EXEMPTION, MS. BASSI-KELLETT. OH, YES. IT'S AN OFFICIAL 2.1.1D THERE'S STILL AN OFFICIAL EXEMPTION FROM VACCINE. SO THAT WOULD BE. SO YOU COULD BE YOU HAVE TO BE OR SO IT WOULD BE ONLY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE 12 AND UP. AND IF YOU HAVE A MEDICAL EXEMPTION, THEN YOU WOULD BE EXEMPT. OK, PERFECT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, I HAD MISSED THAT PART, AND I JUST WAS WORRIED THAT IF WE WENT WITH A BLANKET, ANYBODY OVER 12, THEN IT WOULD CAUSE A BIT OF CONFUSION. BUT THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER BEFORE I DO ROUND TWO? I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AS WELL, YOU KNOW, TECHNICALLY THE GNWT'S PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO 12 AND UP, BUT FOR GREATER CERTAINTY, RECOGNIZING THAT [02:05:05] THE UNDER 12S ARE VACCINATED, I THINK THIS CLEANS IT UP AND ENSURES THAT IT REALLY IS ONLY DEALING WITH INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE 12 AND OVER. COUNCILLOR MORSE, IF YOU WANT TO ROUND TWO COMMENT. THANKS. I THINK THE DIFFICULTY FOR ME HERE IS IF WE END UP HAVING A POLICY THAT ENDS UP CONFLICTING WITH A FUTURE ORDER AND HAVING TO COME BACK AND DEBATE THIS AGAIN. I UNDERSTAND COUNCILLOR MORGAN'S POINT ABOUT THE LEAD TIME, BUT WOULD JUST NOTE THAT THE POLICY IS RELATED TO DIRECTIVES FROM THE CPHO. AND SO I DON'T THINK THE POLICY COULD CONTRADICT A DIRECTIVE, AND I THINK THAT IF THE CPHO WAS TO INDICATE A DIRECTIVE RELATED TO VACCINATION FOR A YOUNGER CROWD THAT THE LEAD TIME IN ORDER TO GET VACCINATED WOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THAT DIRECTIVE. AND SO IT WOULD GIVE THEM A MONTH OR THE SIX WEEKS OR EIGHT WEEKS, OR HOWEVER LONG IS RECOMMENDED IT TAKES TO GET SOMEBODY FULLY VACCINATED. THE ORDER WOULDN'T APPLY UNTIL THEN. SO THAT'S THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT IF THE MAYOR OR ADMINISTRATION HAS A DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING AS TO HOW CPHO ORDERS WORK. BUT I JUST THINK IT'S YEAH, THE DIFFICULTY I'M HAVING WITH THIS ONE IS JUST THAT I AM REALLY, REALLY RELUCTANT TO GO DOWN THE PATH OF POTENTIALLY HAVING A POLICY WHICH THEN LETS SAY, AND I'VE SEEN IN THE NEWS THAT THERE'S POTENTIAL VACCINE APPROVAL COMING FOR KIDS UNDER THE AGE OF 12, BUT THEN WE HAVE TO COME BACK AND HAVE THIS WHOLE DEBATE AGAIN. AND. IT JUST SEEMS TO ME LIKE IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE POLICY, IT SHOULD JUST APPLY TO ANYONE AFFECTED BY THE ORDER THAT SEEMS TO MAKE THE MOST SENSE TO ME. MS. BASSI-KELLETT. COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS, I KNOW, BUT YOU'LL DO THE COMMENT TO CLOSE, SO TO COUNCILLOR MORSE'S POINT. ANY RECOMMENDATION OR FEEDBACK FROM ADMINISTRATION. THANKS VERY MUCH, AND CERTAINLY WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS, THIS ORDER IS PRETTY BIG, IT'S ONE OF THE LONG TERM ORDERS THAT'S BEEN PUT IN PLACE BY THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER CERTAINLY ANTICIPATED TO TAKE US THROUGH THE WINTER. SO WE DON'T ANTICIPATE A LOT OF CHANGES, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT ALREADY. THE APPLICATION TO THOSE WHO ARE 12 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN TWO B AND TWO D OF THE ORDER ITSELF. SO WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT THAT IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE IN PLACE EVEN IF THERE IS A VACCINATION THAT COMES FORWARD. I'LL ASK MS. THISTLE IF SHE'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS, SHE'S DONE SO MUCH OF THE RESEARCH FOR US ON THIS POLICY ITSELF. THANK YOU. INTO THE QUESTION, YEAH, WHEN WE INITIALLY DRAFTED THE POLICY, IT WAS TRYING TO THINK AHEAD THAT KNOWING THAT IF VACCINES CAME FOR PEOPLE UNDER 12 THAT PERHAPS WE'D HAVE TO COME BACK AND AMEND THE POLICY RIGHT AWAY. WE CAN DEFINITELY AMEND IT TO SAY IT'S FOR 12 AND OLDER TO MATCH THE LANGUAGE EXACTLY OF THE ORDER. AND I GUESS ANOTHER OPTION COULD POSSIBLY BE TO SAY THAT ANYONE THAT IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THAT ORDER THAT'S SUBJECT TO A PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY, THAT WE COULD RELATE THAT WORDING BACK TO THE ORDER. SO THAT WAY, IF THE ORDER IS AMENDED TO APPLY TO PEOPLE UNDER 12, THEN OUR POLICY WOULD APPLY OR WE CAN LEAVE IT AT 12 AND OLDER. SO WE WERE TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN THAT WE COULD BE BACK IN THREE WEEKS OR FOUR WEEKS, BUT THAT MIGHT NOT HAPPEN. SO WE'RE AT THE WILL OF COUNCIL. ANYTHING FURTHER COUNCILLOR MORSE. SORRY, I'M JUST THINKING. MAYBE IF SOMEONE ELSE HAS COMMENTS, THEY CAN CHIME IN. COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS TO CLOSE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AGAIN, LIKE I HAD SAID AT GPC AND AT THE PREAMBLE, EVEN THOUGH I WAS STRUGGLING WITH MY TECHNOLOGY IS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS FROM A LONG WEEK OF CONSIDERING READING, LISTENING, CHANGING A POSITION, SO. I WOULD CERTAINLY TAKE PAUSE WHEN THERE'S NOT THAT SAME ABILITY TO MEET SOMEONE HALFWAY. SO I WOULD CERTAINLY CONSIDER IT MY VOTE'S NOT ON THE YES SIDE, SO WE CAN [02:10:07] CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, STILL GO BACK TO WHERE WE WERE AND HAVE THIS BE DEFEATED. THIS IS CERTAINLY AN ATTEMPT TO REACH OUT TO FIND SOME COMFORT WITH A MANDATE THAT IS GOOD FOR ALL YELLOWKNIFER'S. AND I THINK IT'S ON US AS COUNCILLORS TO SOMETIMES FIND IT IN OUR HEARTS OR FIND IT IN OUR REASONING WHAT'S BEST FOR THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE? AND THAT'S WHAT'S BROUGHT ME BACK TO THESE AMENDMENTS. AND IT'S AN EFFORT TO REACH OUT TO THE OTHER SIDE, AND IT'S AN EFFORT TO TRY TO UNITE THIS DECISION AND GET IT PASSED FOR THE MAJORITY OF YELLOWKNIFER'S. THANK YOU. SO TO THE AMENDMENTS THAT THE POLICY IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO RESIDENTS WHO ARE 12 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AND AGAIN, ADMINISTRATION WILL PUT IT INTO THE POLICY AND THE APPLICABLE SECTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. OPPOSED. AND THAT'S DEFEATED WITH COUNCILLOR MORGAN, MUFANDAEDZA, AND WILLIAMS AND MAYOR ALTY IN FAVOR. TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT, WHICH IS THAT THERE'S A CLAUSE ON WHEN THE POLICY IS RESCINDED THAT SAYS THE POLICY IS RESCINDED WHEN THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER IS LIFTED AGAIN, THE CLAUSE WILL BE DRAFTED AND ADDED TO THE POLICY. COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS DID YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM? YEAH, MOST CERTAINLY. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. YEAH, THIS ONE IS THIS ONE IS IS WHAT I GUESS INITIALLY SCARED ME THE MOST, YOU KNOW, TO HAVE A MANDATE POLICY THAT CAN GO INTO PERPETUITY CERTAINLY WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS TERRIBLY PALATABLE FOR ME. I SORT OF SEE THIS AMENDMENT AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE IMMEDIATE NEEDS TO ADDRESS THE PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY WHILE BALANCING THAT AGAINST LONG TERM LIBERTY AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS FOR RESIDENTS. SO I SEE AGAIN AS A COMPROMISE TO TRY TO GET SOME FOLKS ON THE OTHER SIDE TO PLAY SOME BALL. BUT WITH, YEAH, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. THE 12. YEAH, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION ON WHETHER TO ADD A CLAUSE ABOUT RESCINDING IT. COUNCILLOR MORSE. THANK YOU. YEP, I APPRECIATE COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO RESCIND THE POLICY. I WAS KIND OF OPERATING UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE POLICY WOULD BE RESCINDED ONCE THE ORDER IS CLOSED. I THOUGHT THAT WAS KIND OF IMPLICIT. IF MAKING IT EXPLICIT HELPS COUNCILLOR'S WITH THEIR COMFORT WITH THE POLICY, AND CERTAINLY THAT IS FINE BY ME. THE POLICY IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ORDER, SO IT SEEMS TO MAKE PERFECT SENSE TO RESCIND THE POLICY ONCE THE ORDER IS LIFTED. SO I AM IN SUPPORT. THANKS. THANK YOU. IT WAS IMPLICIT, BUT AGAIN, MAKE IT EXPLICIT. IT'S ALWAYS, ALWAYS GOOD TO ADD THAT CLAUSE. COUNCILLOR KONGE DID I SEE YOUR HAND GO UP. NO YOU'RE GOOD. OK, PERFECT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON WHETHER TO ADD A CLAUSE ON THE POLICY BEING RESCINDED? COUNCILLOR SILVERIO. THANK YOU, MAYOR ALTY. JUST FOR THE DISCOURSE ABOUT THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDERS. TO ME, IT'S FAIRLY GENERAL. WE DON'T KNOW WHEN IS THE PUBLIC ORDER WILL BE LIFTED. DO WE KNOW? NO, SO I KNOW THAT IN THE PAST, WE KEEP EXTENDING OUR EMERGENCY ORDERS LIKE ENDLESSLY. SO THIS IS NOT A MEASURABLE I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE IDEA IS GOOD, BUT I WANT TO SEE DATES IF POSSIBLE. BUT BECAUSE THIS CAN PROLONG, WE COULD DO ANOTHER YEAR OF THIS SITUATION. SO I JUST WANT TO BE COMFORTABLE TO KNOW IF MY UNDERSTANDING IS RIGHT OR NOT WITH THIS, YOU KNOW, A PORTION THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED ON THAT. MY FEAR IS THAT IT MIGHT CONTINUE AND THEY MIGHT EXTEND AND EXTEND AND EXTEND. SO THAT'S MY QUESTION. THANK YOU. I GUESS THE DIFFERENCE IS IT'S ACTUALLY THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER AS OPPOSED TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY, WHICH THE PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY GETS EXTENDED EVERY TWO [02:15:01] WEEKS. BUT THIS IS PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER IN THE INTRODUCTION OF THE POLICY. IT'S THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 22, 2021. AND THAT'S JUST A STANDING ITEM AND THE ORDER IS IN EFFECT UNTIL IT'S RESCINDED. SO IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY, WHICH HAS BEEN EFFECTIVE SINCE MARCH OF 2020. THERE'S BEEN MULTIPLE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDERS SINCE THAT TIME. SO THIS IS ABOUT RESCINDING IT WHEN THIS CURRENT PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER WHICH RELATES TO T HAT'S THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES COVID 19 GATHERINGS ORDER. SO IT'S JUST ABOUT CAPACITY AND GATHERING LIMITS. ANYTHING FURTHER TO THE AMENDMENTS? OK, SO ALL IN FAVOR OF INCLUDING A CLAUSE AROUND THE POLICY BEING RESCINDED. AND THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY ANY FURTHER AMENDMENTS. COUNCILLOR MORGAN. THANKS SO FURTHER TO THE DISCUSSION WE JUST HAD ABOUT COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS'S FIRST SUGGESTED AMENDMENT MS. THISTLE SUGGESTED ANOTHER MAYBE SIMILAR OPTION TO MAKE THE POLICY CLEAR IN THAT IT COULD REFER DIRECTLY TO THOSE WHO ARE INCLUDED IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER IN TERMS OF WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE POLICY, SO INSTEAD OF SAYING 12 AND UP. I THINK IT WOULD HELP TO BE CLEAR THAT THE POLICY APPLIES TO THOSE WHO ARE AFFECTED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER, BECAUSE, AGAIN, I'M JUST AFRAID THAT WE WILL INADVERTENTLY HAVE WORDING IN THERE THAT SUDDENLY REQUIRES CHILDREN 5 TO 12. THAT WILL INADVERTENTLY EXCLUDE THEM, YOU KNOW, THE DAY AFTER THEY BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR A VACCINE, AND THAT'S NOT THE INTENT AT ALL OF OUR POLICY, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE LINK. THAT YOU KNOW WHO THIS POLICY APPLIES TO DIRECTLY TO WHO THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER REFERS TO. YEAH, I GUESS. LIKE IN SECTION TWO, IT SAYS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS POLICY AND PURSUANT TO THE ORDERS THEY TALK ABOUT, A PERSON IS FULLY VACCINATED. SO I GUESS PURSUANT TO THE ORDERS WOULD BE THE FACT THAT THE ORDERS SAY IT'S ONLY FOR INDIVIDUALS, 12 AND UP, BUT MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH, THAT'S I MEAN, AN INTERESTING POINT, I'LL SEE, I THINK THAT. YEAH, I'LL ASK MS. THISTLE IF SHE'S GOT SOMETHING THAT SHE'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS ONE AROUND. I MEAN, I SEE THE POINT THAT IS VERY CLEAR ON THIS, THAT WE WANT TO BE IN CLOSE ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT'S BEEN INCLUDED IN THE ORDER. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE COMPATIBLE WITH THAT, BUT WE HAVE BEEN VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS AROUND THE 12 AND UP. MS. THISTLE. YEAH THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. AS OCCURRED AS THE POLICY IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, IT WOULD BE ANYBODY THAT'S ELIGIBLE FOR THE VACCINE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PROOF OF VACCINATION TO ENTER UNLESS THEY'RE EXEMPT UNDER ONE OF THE EXEMPTIONS, WHICH INCLUDES PEOPLE 18 AND UNDER WHO ARE PARTICIPATING, FOR EXAMPLE, IN SPORTS ACTIVITIES SO THEY WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED TO SHOW PROOF OF VACCINE BECAUSE THEY'D BE COVERED UNDER THEIR TERRITORIAL OR NATIONAL SPORT ORGANIZATIONS RETURN TO PLAY EXEMPTION APPROVAL. THIS IS A POLICY IF KIDS 12 AND UNDER ARE ABLE TO GET VACCINATED AND INCLUDE IT. THEN WE WOULD DECIDE ADMINISTRATIVELY WHAT AMOUNT OF TIME WOULDN'T BE NECESSARY TO GIVE THEM TIME TO COMPLY. SIMILAR TO YOU SEE EMPLOYEE VACCINATION MANDATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND WORLD AND EMPLOYEES ARE GIVEN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME FACTORING IN. IF YOU DIDN'T GET YOUR VACCINE AND YOU BOOKED IT FOR TWO WEEKS OUT AND YOU BOOKED THE NEXT ONE FOR TWO WEEKS OUT AND THEN YOU HAD THE EXTRA TWO WEEKS TO BE CONSIDERED FULLY VACCINATED. SO AS IT'S A POLICY, IT DOES GIVE US SOME FLEXIBILITY IF THAT SITUATION ARISES. AND TO BE EVEN MORE DEFINITIVE. ELIGIBLE AND FULLY VACCINATED, THE FIRST TIME THEY COULD BE FULLY VACCINATED WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY SIX WEEKS OUT FROM WHEN THEY'RE ELIGIBLE. [02:20:03] SO AND THEN IT WOULD BE BASED ON WHEN THOSE ARE ROLLED OUT, IF AND WHEN IN THE TERRITORY. SO. CAN I JUST GET CLARIFICATION AGAIN FROM ADMINISTRATION? THERE WAS AN OPTION MENTIONED A FEW MINUTES AGO BY MS. THISTLE. THAT COULD MORE DIRECTLY, LINK, WHO THE POLICY APPLIES TO, TO THE PARTICULAR PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND WHO IS COVERED UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER IS THAT. MS. BASSI-KELLETT. DID I MISUNDERSTAND THAT, THAT THERE COULD BE AN ALTERED WORDING OPTION? I GUESS MY QUESTION, THOUGH COUNCIL JUST DEFEATED, INCLUDING THE. LIKE, WHAT COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS JUST RECOMMENDED IS THAT THE POLICY IS APPLICABLE ONLY FOR RESIDENTS WHO ARE 12 AND UP, WHICH IS THE EXACT SAME WORDING AS THE ORDER. SO I'M NOT SURE WHY WE WOULD ADD PURSUANT TO THE ORDER SINCE THAT WAS JUST DEFEATED BY COUNCIL. OK. YEAH. OK. MY NEXT QUESTION THEN WOULD BE. IF, LIKE I KNOW RIGHT NOW, THE CPHO HAS SAID THAT THE TESTING OPTION SHOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE AS AN ALTERNATIVE FOR ACCESS INTO FACILITIES, PARTLY DUE TO THE RELIABILITY OR THE LACK OF RELIABILITY OF THE KINDS OF TESTS WE HAVE NOW, THE RAPID TESTS THAT ARE COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE. IF THAT CHANGED, IF THERE WAS A MORE RELIABLE TEST THAT BECAME AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE TO TAKE PRIVATELY, THAT THE CPHO DID DECIDE WAS AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE. WOULD THERE BE A MECHANISM FOR OUR POLICY TO SIMILARLY CHANGE, TO PERHAPS ALLOW THAT AS AN ALTERNATIVE? I ASSUME THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THE CPHO WOULD AMEND THE ORDER IF THEY DECIDED THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ACCEPTABLE TEST ALTERNATIVE. BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO IMAGINE IF IF THIS DID HAPPEN, COULD WE ADJUST OUR POLICY ACCORDINGLY? YEAH, THEY HAVE TO ADJUST THE ORDER, SO WE WOULD ADJUST OUR POLICY IF THE CPHO IS GOING TO BE, WHICH I WOULD SAY THAT'S QUOTE UNQUOTE FAIRLY DRASTIC DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S CURRENTLY BEFORE US. OUR POLICY WOULD HAVE TO BE UPDATED. WOULD IT BE AUTOMATICALLY UPDATED OR WOULD THAT COME BACK TO COUNCIL? HOW WOULD THAT WORK? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE SEEKING COUNCIL APPROVAL RIGHT NOW AS THIS WILL BE A PUBLIC POLICY, A PUBLIC COMMITMENT BY THE CITY AND BY COUNCIL. THIS WILL BE A POLICY THAT'S ON OUR WEB PAGE. WE WOULD LOOK THEN, OF COURSE, AT BEING ABLE TO ADJUST IT SHOULD WE NEED TO. I JUST BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THIS IS IDENTIFIED AS A LONG TERM ORDER ON THE COVID PAGE OF THE CPHO, WE ANTICIPATE THIS ONE TO BE IN PLACE FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME. OF COURSE, WE KNOW SCIENCE EVOLVES ON THIS. AND IF THERE WAS SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH TO REQUIRE US TO REEXAMINE THIS, THEN OF COURSE WE WOULD, AND WE BRING IT FORWARD TO COUNCIL TO MAKE ANY MINOR ADJUSTMENTS. OK. THANK YOU FOR THAT ASSURANCE, SO I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR MORSE, THEN I HAVE COUNCILMAN MUFANDAEDZA AND COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. YEAH. I JUST WANT TO MAKE PERHAPS MS. BASSI-KELLETT JUST MADE THIS POINT, AND I APOLOGIZE IF I MISSED IT, BUT IN MY READING OF THE POLICY, THE DRAFT FALLS THERE IS BY BOARD COUNCIL. IT'S VERY SPECIFICALLY SPEAKING TO THE GATHERING ORDER, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 22ND, 2021. CAN WE GET A BIT OF CLARITY, WHICH IS FINE. SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS IF, FOR WHATEVER REASON, SOMETHING IN THE ORDER CHANGES, IF THAT WERE THE CASE, WOULD THE ORDER EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 22ND BE AMENDED BY THE CPHO? OR WOULD THERE BE A NEW ORDER THAT APPLIES THAT WE'D HAVE TO CREATE A POLICY AROUND ANYWAYS? IS IT EVEN PLAUSIBLE THAT KIDS UNDER THE AGE OF 12 WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE COVERED BY OUR POLICY? BECAUSE IF IT'S JUST RELATED TO THE OCTOBER 22ND ORDER, IT'S NOT EVEN POSSIBLE [02:25:01] ANYWAYS. AND SO. CAN WE JUST GET A BIT OF CLARITY ON THAT, HOW THESE ORDERS WORK, I'M ACTUALLY NOT SURE IF THEY ISSUE A NEW ORDER EVERY TIME, IF THEY AMEND THEIR ORDERS. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CERTAINLY, IF YOU GO ON THE SITE THEY'VE GOT ON THE GOVERNMENT GENEALOGY WEB PAGE, THERE'S A BIG BLACK BAR THEY HAVE COVERED RIGHT THERE. IF YOU TAP ON THAT, IT WILL TAKE YOU TO PUBLIC HEALTH ORDERS. AND SO THERE ARE LONG TERM ONES, THERE ARE TEMPORARY ONES AS WELL. THIS FALLS INTO THE CATEGORY OF THE LONG TERM ORDER, THE OCTOBER 22ND ORDER. WE SEE THIS AS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO TAKE US THROUGH THE WINTER AND CERTAINLY IF THERE IS A CHANGE THAT COMES. SO IF THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER SAYS, WHOA, SOMETHING HAS COME UP THAT WARRANTS ME COMING UP WITH ANOTHER ORDER, TEMPORARY OR LONG TERM, WE WOULD SEE HER DO IT IN THE MANNER THAT'S GOING TO BE MOST APPROPRIATE FOR HER. THE LONG TERM ORDERS ARE RELATIVELY NEW. THEY'VE COME IN, THEY'RE SORT OF GETTING US TO SETTLE IN FOR THE COURSE OF THE WINTER. SO I THINK DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCE, THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER WOULD MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT WHAT SHAPE AND FORM ANY CHANGES WOULD BECOME IN THE FUTURE. THANKS. COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS? OH, SORRY. COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA FIRST. SO WAIT, WAIT. I ACTUALLY GOT AN ANSWER THERE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORDERS, THEY ADD AMENDMENTS, IT'S FREQUENTLY IN THE END, WHEREAS. OK. YEAH. SO IT'S THEY DO AMENDMENTS IN THE DOCUMENTS. OK. SO AS IT'S WRITTEN CURRENTLY, THE POLICY WOULD JUST SIMPLY APPLY TO WHATEVER IS IN THE ORDER. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU, THAT'S OUR INTENTION AT THIS POINT IN TIME, YES. OK, THANK YOU. I HAVE COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA AND COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS AND COUNCILLOR KONGE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOUR WORSHIP. I THINK ONE OF THE, WELL MY QUESTION WAS ANSWERED BECAUSE I WAS GOING BACK TO LOOK AT THE GATHERING ORDER EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 22ND, 2021, AND I'M ON THE GNWT WEBSITE, AND I THINK ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD WAS THAT WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS ORDER IS CANCELED? DOES THIS MEAN WE WILL BE HAVING THIS DEBATE ONCE AGAIN TO BE ABLE TO ONCE AGAIN HAVE RESTRICTIONS? BUT I ALSO DO SEE WHEN ADMINISTRATION NOTED THAT THERE IS THE LONG TERM PUBLIC HEALTH ORDERS THAT READS THAT THESE ORDERS ARE GOING TO BE IN PLACE FOR THE DURATION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY UNLESS OTHERWISE RESCINDED OR REVISED. SO I THINK MY QUESTION HAS BEEN ANSWERED. I WAS REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT, ONCE AGAIN, HAVING THIS DEBATE, BUT I THINK I'M OK NOW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'M SO REALLY. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. JUST A FURTHER TO MS. BASSI-KELLETT'S LAST COMMENT THERE. SO SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, VACCINES WERE AVAILABLE TO FOLKS AGED FIVE TO 12 SAY, LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, IN JANUARY, WELL, THIS PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER WAS CONTINUED. THE CPHO AMENDED THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER TO INCLUDE THAT GROUP. WOULD THEY BE INCLUDED IN THIS POLICY? MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE WAY THAT THE WORDING IN THE POLICY IS RIGHT NOW, WHICH SPEAKS TO 2.11 PERSONS WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE THE COVID 19 VACCINE MUST PROVIDE. SO IF THERE WAS THAT. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE ROLLING IT OUT. IT'S GOT TO BE IN PLACE. I IMAGINE THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT BROADENING THE AGE GROUP BASED ON THE ELIGIBILITY TO RECEIVE THE COVID 19 VACCINE. THANK YOU. AND THAT WAS EXACTLY THE POINT THAT I HAD OF CALLING IT OUT AS 12 YEARS OLD AND PLUS IN MY FIRST AMENDMENT. AND UNFORTUNATELY, NOW THAT THAT'S NO LONGER ON THE TABLE OR UNABLE TO BE ADDED BACK INTO THIS, I'M NOT EVEN SURE I'M FOR THE MANDATE AT ALL. LIKE, YOU KNOW, COMING HALFWAY WAS OK. BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S ONLY FOR THE VACCINES ONLY 4-12 PLUS RIGHT NOW. YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID IN MY BEGINNING IS THAT IF IT WAS TO BECOME AVAILABLE FOR FOLKS 5-12, WE WOULD READDRESS IT, RE DEBATE IT AND CREATE A POLICY AROUND THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT THERE BEING SOME KIND OF WORDING, I HAVE A REAL TOUGH TIME SUPPORTING THE MANDATE. THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR KONGE? [02:30:01] THANK YOU. YOU WORSHIP. HAS ADMINISTRATION ASKED THE GNWT WHY WE CAN'T DO. WHY? SO I GUESS A LITTLE BIT OF A PREAMBLE. THE GNWT HAS TOLD ITS EMPLOYEES THAT THEY NEED TO HAVE A VACCINE OR THEY NEED TO DO TESTING A COUPLE OF TIMES A WEEK, THREE TIMES A WEEK IN ORDER TO GO TO WORK. THERE'S OPTIONS FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE GNWT. IT'S NOT, THEY JUST HAVE TO HAVE A MANDATE OR A VACCINATION. THEY CAN, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY CAN DO. IS THERE HAVE WE ASKED THE CPHO, IF. YOU KNOW, IF WE HAD RAPID TESTING OR OTHER SOME OTHER SORTS OF TESTING, WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD BE APPROVED. IF WE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT. IT WOULD BASICALLY PUT US IN CATEGORY C WHERE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE. IT WOULD BE THE IN BETWEEN THE TWENTY FIVE AND THAT UP TO A HUNDRED BECAUSE THE CURRENT RAPID TESTS PRODUCE A LOT OF FALSE NEGATIVES. SO IT'S A CASE OF A PLUS, THERE'S A COST, SO IS THE CITY GOING TO PAY 250 A POP FOR EACH TEST? SO. THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER OFFERS BUSINESSES THE CITY THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE PROOF OF VACCINE CREDENTIAL AND HAVE THOSE HIGHER NUMBERS OR FOR EVERY EVENT, EVERY PROGRAM, EVERY FACILITY, YOU CAN PUT IN A PLAN WHETHER THE CITY WOULD WANT TO PUT IN A PLAN ABOUT USING RAPID TESTING. IT HAS A BUDGET IMPACT FOR THE CITY, AND IT WOULD BE IN BETWEEN THE 20 AND THE OTHER NUMBERS BASED ON MY DISCUSSIONS WITH WELL, THE BUDGET COMPONENT OF IT, I JUST I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S REALLY FEASIBLE FOR THE CITY TO EVEN BE ISSUING TESTS FOR EVERYBODY COMING INTO OUR FIELD HOUSE. BUT MS. BASSI-KELLETT HAS STAFF ALSO HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND THANKS FOR THE QUESTIONS. I KNOW THAT COUNCILLORS ARE REALLY TRYING VALIANTLY TO JUST REALLY HAVE A FULL, COMPREHENSIVE UNDERSTANDING AND FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THIS. WE HAVEN'T ASKED THAT QUESTION. WE LOOK TO THE OCTOBER 22ND ORDER TO BASICALLY STATES THAT THE ONLY WAY AROUND THIS IS TO GET THE PROOF OF VACCINATION POLICY ARE YOU APPLY TO GET THE APPLICATION TO VARY FROM THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER REQUIREMENTS AND THEN YOU GET A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FROM THEM. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEKING TO WORK WITHIN. WE HAVEN'T THROWN A WHOLE BUNCH OF DIFFERENT IDEAS AT THEM. WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE TIME OR THE ENERGY AT THIS POINT TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. SO WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE OCTOBER 22ND'S PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER SO THAT WE CAN SEE ABOUT A WAY TO MAXIMIZE THE INVOLVEMENT AND ACCESS OF YELLOWKNIFE AREAS. AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE COMING TO WITH THE PROOF OF VACCINATION POLICY. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEKING TO ACCOMPLISH. THANK YOU. YEAH, AND I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER ISSUES THAT THAT WEREN'T BROUGHT UP LAST WEEK THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP THIS WEEK. YOU KNOW, IF COUNCIL DOESN'T APPROVE SOMETHING TONIGHT, WE ARE BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, CITY HALL RUNS IT. I BELIEVE IT'S TWENTY FIVE PEOPLE PER FLOOR. FOR THE DURATION OF THIS; IS THAT NOT CORRECT? WE DON'T APPROVE THIS. IF COUNCILLOR CHOOSES NOT TO HAVE A POLICY? CORRECT. THEN ADMIN WOULD GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF SUBMITTING PLANS FOR EVERY PROGRAM AND FACILITY THAT WE HAVE, AND THEN THE WOULD DO A RISK ASSESSMENT AND DETERMINE. IF WE CAN GO BEYOND THE TWENTY FIVE. SO I HAVE A QUESTION. BECAUSE I RECOGNIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE VOTE THIS DOWN TONIGHT, WE CAN'T RECONSIDER IT FOR, I BELIEVE, SIX MONTHS. UM, AND THAT'S CERTAINLY NOT. IT'S NOT A VERY GOOD SITUATION TO BE IN, EITHER. COULD WE TABLE THIS AND GIVE ADMINISTRATION THE DIRECTION THAT WE WANT THEM TO GO AND MAKE THESE APPLICATIONS FOR OUR FACILITIES, GO AND SAY, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD LIKE TO BECAUSE I KNOW PEOPLE THAT ARE VACCINE HESITANT. [02:35:03] WHO ARE CHOOSING. TO GET TESTED FOR COVID. I KNOW THAT LEAVITT SAFETY THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE ONE I BELIEVE YOU GET. YOU GET LITTLE TEST KIT THING. IT'S A, YOU KNOW, IT'S AT HOME, DO IT YOURSELF ONE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S APPROVED BY THE CPHO FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE GNWT OR NOT. BUT I DO KNOW PEOPLE THAT ARE USING IT AND THEY THEY DO SELF CHECKS THREE TIMES A WEEK, WHICH I THINK HONESTLY, ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO IS DOING IT, THEY'RE FULLY VACCINATED BUT REALIZE THAT THEY STILL HAVE A RISK OF HAVING COVID AND THEY DON'T WANT TO GET COVID PUT THEMSELVES OUT IN THE PUBLIC. SO THEY'RE TESTING THEMSELVES JUST TO BE REALLY SURE. UM. BECAUSE THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT OUR FACILITIES, I MEAN, LIKE IT'S, THERE'S SO MUCH GOING ON HERE THAT IS, YOU KNOW, TO GET AN AGENDA ON A FRIDAY AND MAY HAVE SOME PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS ON MONDAY AND THEN TRY TO VOTE FOR IT A WEEK LATER IS. YOU KNOW, WHILE WE'RE DOING THIS OFF THE SIDE OF OUR DESK, WE ALL HAVE FULL TIME JOBS. I THINK WE ALL DO ANYWAY. YOU KNOW, MAYOR, YOU'RE IN A SPECIAL POSITION WHERE THIS IS YOUR FULL TIME JOB AND YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE BEEN HAVING MEETINGS WITH THE CPHO AND THESE OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT SINCE THIS STARTED, I DON'T KNOW, 18 MONTHS AGO, 20 MONTHS AGO, HOWEVER LONG IT IS. SO YOU HAVE MUCH MORE KNOWLEDGE THAN THE REST OF US COUNCILLORS DO. AND I MEAN, THIS IS WHAT EVERY DECISION WE HAVE, WE MAKE SOME PEOPLE HAPPY AND WE MAKE OTHERS NOT HAPPY. THAT'S IN EVERY DECISION THAT COUNCIL MAKES, AND I RECOGNIZE THAT. BUT I FEEL THAT THESE DECISIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE HAVE MUCH LONGER, COULD HAVE MUCH LONGER LASTING CONSEQUENCES FOR PEOPLE. AND SO IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ME, ANYWAY TO GET THIS AS RIGHT AS WE CAN. IT'S NEVER GOING TO BE PERFECTLY RIGHT. I REALIZE THAT AND THE CPAHO PART OF THE CHALLENGE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME COUNCILLOR SAY WE GOT TO FOLLOW THE CPHO, BUT THE CPHO HAS, YOU KNOW, LIKE. THEY'RE SAYING THAT THE, YOU KNOW, THE CPHO IS PART OF THE GNWT. THE GNWT HAS THESE OTHER OPTIONS FOR THEIR STAFF SO THAT THEIR STAFF CAN CONTINUE TO GO TO WORK OTHER THAN VACCINATION. AND VACCINATION PASSPORTS. SO IT'S A LITTLE FRUSTRATING FOR ME WHEN I DON'T FEEL THAT THAT WE ARE GETTING THE OPPORTUNITY OF THOSE SAME OPTIONS FOR OUR RESIDENTS. AND I WOULD LIKE TO EXHAUST THOSE OPTIONS BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION. UM, SO I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO GO TO THE CPHO AND FIND OUT DEFINITIVELY. YOU KNOW, THE POOL IF WE. IF WE HAVE IF WE SAY IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, 17 OR 18, 18 AND ABOVE NEED TO HAVE VACCINATION CARDS, EVERYBODY BELOW THAT DOESN'T. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT. I WOULD SUPPORT THAT RIGHT NOW TODAY. IF THEY SAY WE CAN ASK IF THERE'S ANY OTHER WAYS THAT YOU KNOW, WHETHER PEOPLE PROVIDE TESTING, IF THEY CAN PROVIDE TESTING, WHAT DOES THAT TESTING LOOK LIKE? YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE MAKE THIS DECISION, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION FOR MYSELF. AND NO, LOOK, I DON'T FEEL I HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION YET. I FEEL LIKE. YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, THE GNWT, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO OTHER THINGS. YOU KNOW, HAY RIVER, THEY'RE IN THESE SAME DISCUSSIONS RIGHT NOW. SIMILAR DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'RE HAVING. AND. HONESTLY, I THINK THIS IS THE, FOR ME PERSONALLY, THIS IS THE WORST DECISION THAT I HAVE EVER HAD TO MAKE ON COUNCIL. IT'S, WITH WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US RIGHT NOW IS DAMNED IF I DO AND DAMNED IF I DON'T. IF I SAY, YEAH, LET'S DO THE VACCINATION PASSPORT. THAT MEANS THAT THERE'S SOME CHILDREN OUT THERE WHO THEY JUST DON'T GET ACCESS AND THAT HURTS ME. THAT HURTS MY HEART BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS PUSHED FOR ACCESS FOR CHILDREN. FROM DAY ONE AND COUNCIL, I MEAN, I MOVED A MOTION BACK IN 2012 OR 13 OR WHATEVER IT WAS THAT WE OPENED UP ALL OUR FACILITIES TO CHILDREN WITHOUT THEM HAVING TO PAY. YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE THAT ACCESS TO THESE FACILITIES IS SO IMPORTANT. [02:40:02] SO IF I DO THE VACCINATION PASSPORT, THERE'S A SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION THAT JUST DOESN'T GET ACCESS=. IF WE DON'T DO IT WELL, THEN WE'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE TWENTY FIVE AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, WE'RE ALLOWED TO PUT TWENTY FIVE PEOPLE IN THERE, WHICH MEANS THAT ANOTHER PORTION OF THE POPULATION DOESN'T GET ACCESS. SO FOR ME, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, DO YOU WANT TO NUMBER ONE OR DO YOU WANT NUMBER TWO? THOSE ARE MY DECISIONS, AND I HATE THAT. SO I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS AND DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO GET US SOME MORE ANSWERS ON SOME THINGS. THAT I JUST MENTIONED. AND TRUSTEE, I DON'T WANT THIS OUT THERE FOR ANOTHER WEEK. WE'RE BEING KICKED ALL OVER THE PLACE. THIS IS THIS IS THIS ISN'T EVEN A GREAT SOLUTION, BUT I WOULD RATHER TAKE ANOTHER WEEK OF GETTING KICKED IN THE SHINS AND AND HAVE A RIGHT ANSWER, THEN NOT HAVE THE RIGHT ANSWER. YEAH, IT'S NOT AN EASY PROCESS FOR ADMIN TO GO AND CREATE ALL OF THESE PLANS. IF COUNCIL WANTS ADMIN TO GO AND DO ALL OF THE PLANS, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT YOU VOTE AGAINST THAT AND VOTE AGAINST THIS POLICY AND THEN ADMIN WILL GO AND DO THAT. WE'LL SEE WHAT NUMBERS ARE LIKE IF AT THAT TIME COUNCIL FEELS THAT THOSE NUMBERS AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH. YOU WANT TO TRY THE PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY. THOSE WHO VOTED IN THE MAJORITY COULD ALWAYS DO A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. BUT I WOULD FLAG THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE ADMIN A LOT OF TIME TO DO THIS, JUST TO CHECK AND SEE WHAT WE CAN GET AND IF WE'RE GOING TO BE HAPPY BETWEEN THE TWENTY FIVE AND THE NUMBER WE'D GET WITH THE PROOF OF VACCINE. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? LIKE WE'RE NOT TALKING. WILL BE AT THE TWENTY FIVE, NO TILL PROBABLY AT LEAST DECEMBER, BECAUSE THERE'S THE WORKLOAD THAT THE CITY STAFF ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO TO PREPARE EVERY APPLICATION. THEN IT GOES TO THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICE AND THEY'RE GOING TO REVIEW EVERY DO THE RISK ASSESSMENT AND THEN THEY'LL COME BACK WITH US. SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY ANY TIME SOON, OPENING UP BEYOND TWENTY FIVE. SO JUST. SO FOLKS ARE AWARE. MS. BASSI-KELLETT ANY. HASN'T BEEN DONE AN ASSESSMENT ON YOUR WORKLOAD AND ADDING IN THE PLANS. THANKS VERY MUCH. YOUR WORSHIP, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE HOW CHALLENGING THIS IS FOR C OUNCIL MEMBERS, SO WE'RE TRYING REALLY HARD TO SEEK TO UNDERSTAND, YEAH, WE'RE IF WE END UP WITH DEVELOPING THE INDIVIDUALIZED PROPOSALS PER FACILITY, FIRST, WE'LL NEED TO TRIAGE WHICH WHERE DO WE START WITH THAT? WHERE DO WE THINK WE'LL HAVE THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE GREATEST RESPONSE? I'M GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHO DO I TAKE OFF OTHER PROJECTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THIS WORK DONE BECAUSE WE DO NEED TO PUT A CORPORATE LENS ON IT? WE CAN'T HAVE DIFFERENT PEOPLE DOING DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS FROM THE CITY. THEY ALL GO IN AND THEY'RE NOT THAT, THEY'RE DISJOINTED. SO WE NEED TO LOOK AT HOW WE LAY OUT THE PROCESS FOR DOING IT. WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF KEY POSITIONS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME VACANCIES THAT WOULD BE DRIVING A LOT OF THIS. WE NEED TO FIGURE THAT PART OF IT OUT. IF AND I'M SORRY, I DON'T MEAN TO SOUND LIKE A DOWNER. AND MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE IT'S LATE AT NIGHT, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE FAIRLY HEAVY WORKLOAD FOR ADMINISTRATION TO DO THAT. IT'S GOING TO TAKE US TIME TO DO. AND IN FACT, SO POTENTIALLY. JAN, IF WE HAD THE. WE BROUGHT THIS BACK AS A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. AND IN THE MEANTIME, WE'RE JUST AT THE TWENTY FIVE; IS THAT CORRECT? AND THE USER GROUPS, I MEAN, AND THAT'S PART OF THE CHALLENGE, TOO, LIKE, YOU KNOW, I HAVE MEMBERS OF USER GROUPS WHO ARE TELLING ME, YOU KNOW, AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, I CAN'T WATCH MY CHILD PLAY HOCKEY BECAUSE I HAVE TO LOOK AT PEOPLE'S VACCINATION. PASSPORTS. BUT I MEAN, THAT DOESN'T IF THE CITY BRINGS THIS IN, THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THAT ANYWAY, THE USER GROUPS WHO SAID THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CHECK PEOPLE'S VACCINATION PASSPORTS, THEY STILL HAVE TO DO THAT. I SEE MS. BASSI-KELLETT IS NODDING HER HEAD. YOU KNOW, BUT I DON'T THINK THE USER GROUPS UNDERSTAND OR REALIZE THAT OR SOME PEOPLE IN THE USER GROUPS DON'T BASED ON THE QUESTIONS THAT I'M BEING ASKED RIGHT NOW. OH, BOY. DOES THE ADMINISTRATION THINK THAT THE CPHO WILL HAVE ANY LIKELIHOOD OF [02:45:05] APPROVING A 18 AND OVER PASSPORT PROGRAM. CAN WE REASSESS THIS AND ASK THAT QUESTION? JUST ONE QUESTION? WELL, THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER SAYS IT'S FOR 12 AND UP. BUT WE COULD ASK FOR A VARIANCE ON THAT ONE PART. SO THEN WE'RE TO YOUR OTHER POINT, WE'RE GOING BACK TO ASKING FOR VARIANCES FOR ALL THE FACILITIES. BUT I'M NOT ASKING FOR ONE FOR EACH FACILITY. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN DO A BLANKET ONE FOR ALL OF OUR FACILITIES, WHICH SHOULD LIGHTEN THE WORKLOAD FOR ADMINISTRATION. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. A COUPLE OF FACTORS COME TO MIND RIGHT OFF THE BAT AND FORGIVE ME IF I'M A LITTLE DISJOINTED ON THIS. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER WOULD SAY. THEY ESTABLISHED FOR 12 AND UP. THEY PUT SOME THOUGHT INTO THAT. ALL I'D NEED TO THINK AS WELL ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS FOR CITY STAFF BECAUSE WE DO EMPLOY A NUMBER OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN OUR FACILITIES. WE NEED TO THINK THEN AROUND THE PROOF OF VACCINATION AND HOW WE KEEP THEM SAFE IF THERE ISN'T THAT REQUIREMENT IN PLACE. SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT FACTORS WITH IT, BUT WE'D NEED TO PITCH THAT ONE TO THE CPHO AND SEE IF THEY HAVE AN APPETITE TO GET BACK TO US ON A HYPOTHETICAL LIKE THAT. THANK YOU. OK, AND THANK YOU FOR THAT, AND I MEAN, YOU TALK ABOUT KEEPING THE STAFF SAFE, AND I MAINTAIN THAT WHILE VACCINATIONS LIKE I'M VACCINATED, MY FAMILY'S VACCINATED, I BELIEVE VACCINATIONS ARE A GOOD THING. FOR COVID, COVID HAS A QUITE HIGH BREAKTHROUGH RATE, AND THOSE PEOPLE, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE VACCINATED. THEY ARE A POTENTIAL RISK IN OUR FACILITIES, AND THEY'RE WALKING AROUND WITHOUT KNOWING SOME OF THEM THAT THEY EVEN HAVE COVID, SO. YOU KNOW, WE DISCUSSED THIS BRIEFLY AT GPC TODAY, BUT I REALLY DO FEEL A DISCONNECT THERE BETWEEN WE'RE ONLY GOING TO ALLOW PEOPLE WHO ARE VACCINATED IN OUR FACILITIES BECAUSE IT'S SAFER WITHOUT THAT STATEMENT DOESN'T ACKNOWLEDGE AT ALL THAT THERE IS, YOU KNOW, UPWARDS. I BELIEVE THIS WEEK IT'S THIRTY FIVE PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE IN THE GNWT` WHO HAVE COVID ARE FULLY VACCINATED. SO IF THE PASSPORT IS ABOUT KEEPING OUR PEOPLE SAFE. I QUESTION THAT. I HIGHLY, HIGHLY QUESTION THAT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT'S A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY AT THAT POINT. I'M NOT ARGUING ABOUT THE VACCINATION LIKE IT'S A GOOD THING TO HAVE, BUT WE KNOW THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE VACCINATED, YOU CAN STILL GET COVID AND YOU CAN STILL TRANSMIT COVID. SO HAVING THE PASSPORT DOESN'T ENSURE US THAT THE PEOPLE COMING IN THE DOOR DON'T HAVE COVID. I RECOGNIZE THAT THAT THE CHANCE OF THEM HAVING COVERED IS MUCH LESS THAN THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT VACCINATED. I RECOGNIZE THAT. FULLY. BUT IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T. OUR STAFF IS NOT SAFE BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS VACCINATED. I THINK IS THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE HERE, SO. I WOULD LIKE THAT HYPOTHETICAL TO BE ASKED. I WOULD IF THERE'S SUPPORT FOR THAT, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS UNTIL WE GET AN ANSWER ON THAT. THAT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING FOR ANY OF THE USER GROUPS, IT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE ANYTHING THAT THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING AT OUR FACILITIES OTHER THAN WE'RE RUNNING IT AT TWENTY FIVE INSTEAD OF POTENTIALLY ONE HUNDRED, WHICH IS VERY UNFORTUNATE AND NOT WHERE I WANT TO BE. BUT IF WE COULD, IF WE COULD GET KIDS INTO OUR FACILITIES ON A EQUAL BASIS FOR ALL OF THEM, I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM SUPPORTING THAT. SO, YEAH, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. IF THERE'S SUPPORT FOR THAT, I WILL MOVE IT OR SHOULD I MOVE IT NOW? MAYOR ALTY OR HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROCEED? YEAH, SO. WELL, YOU'RE REFERRING IT BACK TO ADMINISTRATION. I YES. NO, YOU WANT TO TABLE IT. AND YOU WANT TO ASK ADMINISTRATION ABOUT WHETHER THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER WILL ALLOW FOR OUR FACILITIES TO BE 18 AND OLDER, FOR THE PROOF OF ENTRY. I THINK WE'RE IN A SCENARIO C AND IT'S JUST [02:50:04] TO TABLE IT, WE BRING BACK TO. COUNCIL, THE MEETING OF MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22ND. COUNCIL VOTES TO DEFEAT IT ADMIN THEN STARTS THE WORK TO ENTER ALL THESE VARIANCES AT THAT TIME. COUNCIL DOESN'T LIKE THE VARIANCES. SO THE END OF JANUARY, WE REDIRECTED ADMIN TO DO A PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY, JUST TRYING TO THINK THROUGH IT. BUT. MS. BASSI-KELLETT, I GUESS, ADVISABILITY ON TABLING THIS AND. I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CPHO TO SEE IF THEY'LL ACCEPT 18 AND OVER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR WORSHIP. WITH, HOW CAN I SAY THIS, I THINK WE'RE ALL FRUSTRATED WITH THIS ISSUE. WE ALL UNDERSTAND THE PRESSURES THAT ARE GOING ON AROUND THIS. I FEAR THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A, HEY, HOW ABOUT WE TRY THIS OVER HERE? WHAT ABOUT THIS? LET'S TRY THIS. I THINK WE'VE LAID OUT STATUS QUO PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY, OR WE GO WITH A APPLICATION BASED ON EVERY FACILITY, PROGRAM OR EVENT THAT WE'RE HAVING TO GO BACK AND TO SORT OF START ASKING, WELL, WHAT DO YOU THINK? HONESTLY, I MEAN, WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER, GOSH, ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES OVER THE LAST 18 MONTHS, AND WE'VE PITCHED HYPOTHETICAL IDEAS TO THEM AND THEY'RE LIKE, THAT'S GREAT, THAT'S HYPOTHETICAL. COME TO US WITH SOMETHING REAL. SO IF WE KEEP PITCHING, HOW ABOUT THIS? HOW ABOUT THAT? I THINK WE'RE DELAYING AND PROLONGING THIS CONVERSATION. AND SO IT WOULD BE REALLY GREAT IF THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE IF THERE WAS ONE OF THOSE OPTIONS THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT LAST WEEK AND TODAY THAT COULD BE SEEN AS A PATH FORWARD FOR COUNCIL. THANK YOU. IS, YEAH, VOTING AGAINST THIS ADMIN WILL THEN BEGIN THE WORK OF SUBMITTING ALL OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR THE VARIOUS PROGRAMS, POSTS OR PROGRAMS, FACILITIES, MEETINGS LIKE OUR. BECAUSE THAT'S ALSO, YOU KNOW, OUR STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING AT THE END. WHETHER WE WANT TO HAVE ANY PART OF IT IN PERSON IS PENDING TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION. YEAH, AND BUDGET AND I MEAN, IT'S, YOU KNOW, I JUST, TEARS MY HEART APART, THOSE KIDS THAT, YOU KNOW, REALLY BY NO CHOICE OF THEIR OWN, THEY'RE LEFT ON THE OUTSIDE LOOKING IN AND I HAVE TRIED LITERALLY MY WHOLE LIFE TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL KIDS HAD EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. AND THIS IS ME HAVING TO VOTE THAT THEY DON'T AND THAT I AM. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WILL EVER UNDERSTAND HOW DIFFICULT FOR ME, THIS DECISION IS BASED ON THAT ALONE THAT I AM PUTTING KIDS OUTSIDE LOOKING IN AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO. YOU KNOW, PLAY ALONG. AND THAT'S. YEAH. NO, I APPRECIATE IT IS A BIG CHALLENGE, BUT I THINK. YOU KNOW, IT'S. DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO GET GOING ON THESE APPLICATIONS OR PROCEED WITH WITH THE POLICY. I DON'T THINK ANY OF US ARE SAYING ADMIN, DON'T DO ANY WORK, LET'S JUST SAY IT. TWENTY FIVE, THAT IS ALSO AN OPTION. SAYING STUFF DOESN'T. THEY DON'T HAVE TO SUBMIT ANY OF THOSE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S. THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING FROM COUNCIL. UM, SO TO THE MOTION OF ACCEPTING THE PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY WITH ONE AMENDMENT, WHICH IS TO ADD A CLAUSE ON THE POLICY TO RESCIND. ANY? COUNCILLOR MORGAN? YEAH, I'M ASSUMING THIS IS THE TIME TO MAKE OUR OVERALL COMMENTS OR STATEMENTS? I FIRST JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I DO DEEPLY SYMPATHIZE WITH COUNCILLOR KONGE'S STATEMENTS THERE. I ADMIT THAT MY FIRST REACTION WHEN WE SAW THIS POLICY WAS ALSO IN MY [02:55:04] HEAD TO THINK. LET'S FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT NOT APPLY TO 18 AND UNDER. FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT COUNCILLOR KONGE EXPLAINED. AND BUT THEN WE COME UP AGAINST THE FACT THAT THIS ORDER, IT COMES FROM THE CPHO THAT WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER. APPLIES TO 12 AND UP. SO JUST TO STEP BACK, OBVIOUSLY, SINCE THE PANDEMIC BEGAN. IT'S BEEN A TIME OF INCREDIBLE STRESS AND FEAR FOR ALL OF US. AND UNCERTAINTY. UH, CONTINUING UNCERTAINTY, LOTS KEEPS CHANGING. THERE'S LOTS OF INFORMATION THAT COMES OUT OF ALL THE TIME. AND SO ONE THING I DO KNOW IS THAT. NONE OF US HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. NONE OF US KNOW FOR SURE. YOU KNOW, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN? WHAT'S GOING TO KEEP US ALL SAFE AND WE SO DESPERATELY ALL WANT THOSE ANSWERS BY NOW? IT'S BEEN SO LONG WITH SO MUCH FEAR AND SO MUCH UNCERTAINTY. BUT I HAVE TO STEP BACK IN TERMS OF WHAT THIS DECISION TONIGHT IS ABOUT AND WHAT IT'S NOT ABOUT. SO WHAT IT'S NOT ABOUT IS THIS IS NOT A VOTE ON HUMAN RIGHTS, YOU KNOW, WE ARE NOT A HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL. WE'RE NOT A COURT. WE'RE NOT QUALIFIED TO DECIDE ON HUMAN RIGHTS MATTERS, AND SO WE ALREADY HAD A STATEMENT FROM THE NWTE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ON THAT. AND THAT BEING VACCINATED IS NOT SOMEONE'S RIGHT AND THEREFORE DOESN'T REQUIRE ACCOMMODATION, IT'S DIFFERENT FROM \OTHER KINDS OF RIGHTS PEOPLE HAVE BASED ON NOT TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BASED ON THEIR RACE, GENDER, ET CETERA. UM. IT'S ALSO NOT A VOTE ON THE BEST PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURES MOVING FORWARD, SO OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE. NONE OF US ARE PUBLIC HEALTH EXPERTS. WE CAN DEBATE SCIENCE ALL NIGHT AND STILL, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT QUALIFIED TO DECIDE WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC OR STAFF. WE'RE ALSO NOT THE FIRST GROUP TRYING TO MAKE THIS DECISION RIGHT, WE'RE NOT TRAILBLAZING HERE, WE'RE NOT UNIQUE. WE'RE NOT SPECIALLY PLACED TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE SOME NEW DECISION, THIS IS MUCH BIGGER THAN US. THE CONTEXT OF THE PANDEMIC, THE SCIENCE, THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDERS IS MUCH, MUCH BIGGER THAN US. I ALSO FEEL LIKE THIS IS NOT A VOTE THAT'S GOING TO MAKE ANY OF US HEROES. AND I KNOW SOME OF US MAY WANT IT TO BE HEROES, EITHER HEROES, IN TERMS OF FEELING LIKE WE'RE GOING TO SAVE, YOU KNOW, YELLOWKNIFERS, PROTECT EVERYONE'S SAFETY, PROTECT US FROM COVID OR HEROES IN TERMS OF BE THE ONES TO STAND UP FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AND BE THE ONES TO START A NEW PRECEDENT OF, YOU KNOW, BRINGING DOWN WITH PURCHASE TO VACCINATE PEOPLE. SO I DO THINK TONIGHT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY OF THOSE THINGS, NONE OF US ARE GOING TO BE HEROES. WHAT HAS BECOME VERY CLEAR TO ME, ESPECIALLY OVER THE PAST WEEK, IS THAT THIS IS NOT A SIMPLE DEBATE, AND IT'S NOT SIMPLY A FIGHT BETWEEN ANTI-VAXXERS AND THE VACCINATED AND SOME PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY IN THE PUBLIC MAY HAVE THOUGHT THAT IT WAS AS SIMPLE AS THAT, AND IT'S NOT. WE'VE HEARD FROM MANY, MANY PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY. SOME VACCINATED, SOME VACCINATED WHO DON'T WANT A PROOF OF VACCINE MANDATE BECAUSE THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR NEIGHBORS AND FELLOW COMMUNITY MEMBERS BEING ABLE [03:00:01] TO ACCESS FACILITIES THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT OTHERS BEING UNDER PRESSURE TO GET THE VACCINE. WELL, WHAT I HAVE TAKEN FROM ALL THE COMMENTS IN TERMS OF THINGS WE ALL HAVE IN COMMON THINGS EVERYBODY IN THIS COMMUNITY SEEMS TO AGREE ON. FIRST OF ALL, I AM CONVINCED THAT WE DO ALL CARE ABOUT THIS COMMUNITY. SOME HAVE ASSUMED OR IMPLIED THAT. THOSE WHO ARE NOT ON THEIR SIDE OF THE DEBATE DON'T CARE ABOUT THIS COMMUNITY, AND I'M CONVINCED THAT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. EVERYONE THAT HAS WRITTEN INTO US FROM ALL SIDES OF THE ISSUE HAVE SHOWN THAT THEY DO DEEPLY CARE ABOUT THIS COMMUNITY AND THEY CARE ABOUT THEIR GOVERNMENT AND HOLDING THEIR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE, BUT EVERYONE IS EXPRESSING CONCERN FOR OTHERS AND MAKING SURE PEOPLE ARE SAFE AND MAKING SURE PEOPLE FEEL INCLUDED. SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN HOLD ON TO AS SOMETHING THAT THAT'S A VALUE THAT IS VERY STRONG IN THIS COMMUNITY AND WE HOLD IN COMMON. IT'S ALSO COME THROUGH LOUD AND CLEAR THAT EVERYONE VALUES OUR FACILITIES, WHICH I KNOW DOESN'T NECESSARILY HELP US WITH OUR DECISION TONIGHT, BUT IT'S GOOD TO KNOW THAT PEOPLE DO REALLY HIGHLY VALUE THESE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IT IS SO IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE'S HEALTH, MENTAL HEALTH PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMUNITY. I GET THAT WE ALL AGREE ON THIS. SO AMIDST THIS INCREDIBLE UNCERTAINTY THAT WE ALL LIVE IN, THERE ARE SOME THINGS I THINK WE DO KNOW FOR SURE. I THINK WE DO KNOW FOR SURE THAT THESE PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURES, THE CPHO ORDERS ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM FROM COLLAPSING. THAT'S ALL OF OUR BIGGEST FEAR, BECAUSE IF WE DON'T HAVE A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, WE HAVE NOTHING. WE HAVE NOWHERE TO GO AFTER THAT. AND AND SO WHILE THERE ARE OTHER UNCERTAINTIES AROUND THE COVID VACCINE AND AROUND POLICIES OF LIMITING OCCUPANCY AND ALL THESE THINGS. AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE DO HAVE STRONG EVIDENCE. WELL, WE DO KNOW THAT REDUCING TRANSMISSION TO THE UNVACCINATED WILL VASTLY REDUCE HOSPITALIZATIONS, SEVERE ADVERSE EFFECTS WILL PROTECT OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. AND THEN, OF COURSE, WE COME BACK TO OUR RECREATION FACILITIES. SO WE'VE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR THAT THIS COMMUNITY IS DESPERATE TO GET BACK TO USING OUR FACILITIES AT A HIGHER CAPACITY. SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WAITING SO LONG FOR THIS AND NEED, YOU KNOW, THAT OUTLET THAT OUR FACILITIES PROVIDE. AND SO, BASED ON THE CONSTRAINTS THAT WE'RE UNDER RIGHT NOW, IT SEEMS CLEAR TO ME THAT WE WILL BE CREATING MORE INCLUSION AND MORE ACCESSIBILITY, THAN ANY OTHER SITUATION THAT WE CAN FIGURE OUT RIGHT NOW BY PASSING THIS PROOF OF VACCINATION MANDATE. AND SO BEYOND THE ISSUE OF ACCESSIBILITY, OF COURSE, WE'RE ALSO BENEFITING EVERYONE IN THE CITY BY REDUCING THIS OVERWHELMING BURDEN ON TAXPAYERS, THAT THE STATUS QUO MEANS THAT ALL TAXPAYERS IN THE CITY ARE PAYING WAY MORE THAN USUAL BECAUSE THE FACILITIES ARE VASTLY UNDERUTILIZED, AND WE'RE RELYING WAY MORE ON TAXES THAN USER FEES. SO, I THINK TO ME, THE CLEAR PATH FORWARD FOR NOW IS THIS PROOF OF VACCINATION MANDATE. IT WON'T BE FOREVER. I AM HOPEFUL THAT THINGS WILL DEVELOP. MAYBE THERE'LL BE A BETTER TESTING ALTERNATIVE THAT WILL COME FORWARD AND WILL BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE CPHO AS AN ALTERNATIVE. COUNCILLOR MORGAN, I'M JUST GOING TO HAVE TO ASK YOU TO WRAP IT UP. [03:05:02] OK, SO I'LL LEAVE IT THERE. THIS IS NOT A SURPRISE TO ANY OF YOU, BUT YEAH, THOSE ARE MY VIEWS FOR TODAY. THANK YOU. I'VE GOT COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA AND THEN COUNCILLOR PAYNE. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR WORSHIP. SO BEFORE I GET INTO MY STATEMENT, I JUST HAD A QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO THE DISCUSSION WE WERE HAVING ON SUBMITTING INDIVIDUAL PLANETARIUM JUST TO MY OTHER SCREEN SO THAT I CAN LOOK AT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. SO I JUST HAD A QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO THE SCENARIO OF SUBMITTING FACILITY PLANS FOR APPROVAL. SO MY QUESTION IS JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I CAN WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THE MAGNITUDE OF OUR ASK. ARE WE SAYING BY REQUESTING ADMINISTRATION TO SUBMIT INDIVIDUAL PLANS? ARE WE? I JUST PULLED UP ONE OF THE PROGRAMS FOR, SAY, TEENAGERS. ARE WE SAYING WE'RE SUBMITTING A PROGRAM REQUEST FOR, SAY, BEGINNER'S YOGA, ONE FOR BOLLYWOOD DANCE, ONE FOR CARD MAKING? OR ARE WE SAY WE'RE SUBMITTING A PLAN FOR THE FIELD HOUSE, A PLAN FOR THE MULTIPLEX? JUST FOR THAT SO THAT I CAN WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THE ASK. MS. BASSI-KELLETT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT FACILITIES FOR SURE, BUT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT PROGRAMS AS WELL IN THAT WE'RE SEEKING TO HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF HOW MANY PEOPLE COULD WE HAVE FOR SWIMMING LESSONS VERSUS PUBLIC SWIM VERSUS AQUA FIT IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE, LIKE SOME OF THE ONES THAT COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA MENTIONED, THEY TAKE PLACE IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AROUND THE COMMUNITY. I'D HAVE TO ASK MR. WHITE IF HE'S STILL, IF HE'S HERE, IF HE COULD SPEAK TO SOME OF THE DETAIL AROUND THAT IF WE'RE GOING INTO DIFFERENT FACILITIES. I KNOW OFTEN WE USE SCHOOL GYMS, WHICH WE JUST GOT NEWS ON JUST THIS AFTERNOON IN TERMS OF OUR ABILITY TO ACCESS. THERE MAY BE SOME OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE THAT WE WOULD NEED TO BE LOOKING AT FOR SOME OF THOSE PROGRAMS. SO GRANT, ARE YOU THERE AND COULD YOU SHED A LITTLE BIT OF LIGHT IN TERMS OF HOW SPECIFIC AND GRANULAR WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO GET AROUND SOME OF THE PROGRAMING AND OUR APPLICATIONS? YES. THANKS, MS. BASSI-KELLETT. YES, I'M STILL HERE, AND YES, I'M STILL FOCUSED. SO THE PROGRAMS, OF COURSE, OCCURRED INSIDE OF THE FACILITY, SO PROGRAM CAPACITY WOULD BE BASED ON THE SPECIFIC FACILITY THAT THEY ARE IN. FOR THE MOST PART, WE TRY TO USE OUR CITY FACILITIES FIRST. SO THAT GIVES US, YOU KNOW, THE MULTIPLEX GEM, THE TASB MEETING ROOM STUFF WITHIN OUR FIELD HOUSE. SO, LIKE RIGHT NOW, WE'RE LIMITED TO 25 OR LESS, AND THAT STILL FITS WITHIN OUR PROGRAM MANDATE, SO WE'RE STILL ABLE TO OFFER THE MAJORITY OF OUR PROGRAMS WITHOUT AFFECTING, YOU KNOW, ANY COST OR OR CAPACITY ISSUES. THANK YOU. OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT, FOR THAT INFORMATION. SO JUST GOING TO MY COMMENTS FOR THE EVENING. WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF INFORMATION OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS. WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF READING ON OUR OWN DURING GPC THIS AFTERNOON. WE DID HEAR THAT OVER 260 E-MAILS WERE RECEIVED FROM RESIDENTS. I KNOW PEOPLE HAVE RECEIVED SEPARATE TEXTS, CALLS, VISITS FROM CONSTITUENTS THAT HAVE COME IN WITH DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY. WE'VE ALSO HEARD THAT IMPLEMENTING A PROOF OF VACCINE WOULD INCREASE THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS THAT COULD USE OUR INDOOR FACILITIES, THAT THE SWIMMING POOL IS USUALLY 80 PERCENT OF PUBLIC USE AND 20 PERCENT RENTAL, WHICH IS NOT PART OF ANY PROGRAMING. WE ALSO HEARD THIS AFTERNOON THAT, YOU KNOW, BY NOT IMPLEMENTING THE PROOF OF VACCINE, THERE IS A POTENTIAL REVENUE LOSS OF ABOUT $213,000 FOR THE YEAR. IT IS A LOT OF INFORMATION, A LOT OF BIG DECISIONS. ONE OF THE THINGS I ALSO REALLY, REALLY WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT IS WE'VE ALSO HEARD RESIDENTS THAT HAVE SAID, HEY, IF YOU VOTE TO INTRODUCE THE PROOF OF VACCINE, WE WILL NOT BE HAPPY WITH REGARDS TO THE UPCOMING REFERENDUM AND PEOPLE THAT HAVE SAID IF YOU VOTE AGAINST IT, YOU WOULD NOT BE HAPPY WITH REGARDS TO THE REFERENDUM. MY URGE TO RESIDENTS IS THAT REMEMBERING THE POOL IS A LONG TERM YELLOWKNIFE ASSET. WE WILL NEED IT, AND I HAVE SAID TO MY KIDS, WE HAVE TO REMEMBER TWO YEARS FROM NOW OR LATER ON WHEN THE POLLS CLOSE FOR TWO YEARS, THAT THIS IS A DECISION THAT WE MADE BASED ON COUNCILLORS THAT HAVE LONG GONE THAT AN ISSUE THAT PROBABLY WILL NO LONGER BE [03:10:05] AN ISSUE AT THE TIME. SO COMING BACK TO THE MATTER ON HAND. IT'S BEEN SUCH A STRUGGLE FOR ME. IT'S BEEN A STRUGGLE. I'VE REACHED OUT TO MANY RESIDENTS. I'VE SPOKEN TO A LOT OF PEOPLE, I'VE SPOKEN TO YOUNGER ADULTS, I'VE SPOKEN TO TEENAGERS WHO ARE POSSIBLY GOING TO BE AFFECTED AND JUST TRY TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR TAKE ON THIS. AND ONE OF THE BIG THINGS DURING MY CAMPAIGN WAS I HAD A CHANCE TO REACH OUT TO MY KIDS FRIENDS GROUPS BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THEY ARE MY VERY RELIABLE, UNBIASED SOURCE. AND ONE OF THE THINGS I HEARD FROM THIS USER GROUP IS WE ARE TIRED OF NOT BEING ABLE TO GO TO THE POOL WITH OUR FRIENDS. WE ARE TIRED OF NOT BEING ABLE TO GO TO A PUBLIC SKATE. WE WANT TO SEE OUR FRIENDS. THE WINTER IS LONG, IT IS COMING AND WE NEED TO HAVE A PLAN. WE'VE ALSO HEARD FROM RESIDENTS THAT HAVE URGED US TO. THIS IS NOT ABOUT OUR PERSONAL VIEWS, BUT THIS IS ABOUT A GLOBAL PANDEMIC THAT WE NEED TO ACT LIKE WE'RE IN A GLOBAL PANDEMIC. WE'VE HEARD FROM RESIDENTS THAT HAVE SAID THIS IS ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE PROTECT OUR STAFF WHO HAVE TO SERVE THE VACCINATED AND UNVACCINATED. SO THIS IS ABOUT A BIGGER ISSUE THAN WHAT WE COULD WRAP OUR HEADS AROUND. WELL, ONE OF THE RESIDENTS THAT I HEARD FROM WAS A QUESTION ON IF REDUCING CAPACITY WAS CONSIDERED AS BEING MORE INCLUSIVE BECAUSE IF WE KEPT AT TWENTY FIVE, ARE WE BEING INCLUSIVE? UM, SO I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, AND I'M REALLY STRUGGLING WITH MY DECISION TONIGHT, AND I REALLY, REALLY WOULD LIKE TO THANK ALL THE RESIDENTS THAT REACHED OUT TO ME, REACHED OUT TO US, GAVE US THEIR OPINION. AND JUST REMEMBER, IT IS VERY HARD AND WE KNOW THAT WHATEVER DECISION WE MAKE TONIGHT IS NOT GOING TO MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY, BUT WE HAVE SEARCHED DEEP, FAR HARD AND HOPE THAT WHATEVER WAY THIS VOTE GOES IS WHAT COUNCIL HAS DECIDED, AND I WILL STAND BY IT, BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, I WOULD DEFINITELY BE SUPPORTING THE PROOF OF VACCINATION BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR THE RESIDENTS OF YELLOWKNIFE, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE MORE ACCESS, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE MORE PEOPLE USE OUR FACILITIES. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND LOTS AND LOTS OF LOVE IN YELLOWKNIFE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA. YES, AND THE POOL IS THAT 25 TO 30 YEAR HORIZON. COUNCILLOR PAYNE? THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. YEAH, IT'S DEFINITELY BEEN A TOUGH WEEK AND I THINK THIS IS MY SIXTH YEAR ON COUNCIL, AND I'VE NEVER HAD A, THIS IS PROBABLY THE TOUGHEST DECISION THAT IT'S EVER COME TO US. THE PROBLEM WITH THIS, RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING IS THAT WE WERE NEVER GIVEN ANY OPTIONS. IT WAS EITHER A YES OR NO, AND THAT WAS IT. AND IT'S NEVER SAT WELL WITH ME THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE 17 PERCENT OR WHATEVER, WHATEVER PERCENTAGE IT IS OF KIDS. I'M NOT THINKING ABOUT ADULTS. ADULTS CAN CAN FIND YOUR OWN THINGS TO DO, BUT IT'S THE YOUTH, IT'S THE KIDS THAT UP TO 17 YEARS OLD, YOU KNOW, THAT ARE STILL IN SCHOOL THAT I THAT I WORRY ABOUT. AND LIKE NIELS, I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANYBODY LEFT ON THE OUTSIDE. YOU KNOW ME, YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT YOUR OWN LIFE BEING FULL OF LOVE. AND YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN HERE FOR 26 YEARS, AND SO IT'S A WONDERFUL PLACE TO BE. AND I'VE HAD A REALLY GREAT LIFE UP HERE AND MY KIDS HAVE HAD A GREAT LIFE AND, YOU KNOW, WE WERE ALWAYS A CITY THAT INCLUDED EVERYBODY, AND IF ANYBODY NEEDED HELP, WE WERE ALWAYS THERE TO HELP THEM OUT. I'VE BEEN HEARING TONIGHT WE'VE GOT TO DO WHAT THE MAJORITY WANTS, BUT WE MAKE LOTS OF DECISIONS BASED ON THE MINORITIES, YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN A SMALLER GROUP AND YOU KNOW. YOU CAN'T ALWAYS JUST GO WITH WHAT THE MAJORITY WANTS. WE TALKED ABOUT LOSING REVENUE, WE GOT 213 THOUSAND DOLLARS THAT WE'D LOSE OVER FOUR YEARS. NOW MAYBE THIS IS GOING TO BE A THREE MONTH THING. MAYBE THINGS GET BETTER. OUR NUMBERS HAVE GONE DOWN. YOU KNOW, SO ARE WE GOING TO STILL BE DOING THIS IF OUR NUMBERS HIT ZERO? YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO TO COME BACK TO IT RIGHT NOW. YOU KNOW, LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. IT'S A REALLY TOUGH ONE, BUT I LIKE WHAT NIELS BROUGHT TO THE TABLE. I LIKE GOING AND SEEING AT LEAST SEEING AT LEAST WE'VE EXHAUSTED OUR OPTIONS AND [03:15:02] THEN WE CAN MAKE A DECISION LIKE OR WE CAN GET SOME FAIR NUMBERS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE NUMBERS ARE BEING BROUGHT FORWARD ARE FAIR NUMBERS. YOU KNOW, IT'S, YEAH, I MEAN, WE GOT SOME GREAT FACILITIES. I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY KID LOOKING IN THROUGH THE WINDOWS DURING THIS WINTER. WE GOT THE COLDEST PART OF THE YEAR COMING UP IN THE DARKEST PART OF THE YEAR AND PEOPLE NEED THESE FACILITIES. IT SEEMS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE PHYSICAL HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH IS SECONDARY RIGHT NOW TO TO EVERYTHING ELSE, AND I'M NOT WILLING TO RISK, YOU KNOW, THE MENTAL HEALTH OF A LOT OF THESE STUDENTS, SO I'M JUST NOT THERE, SO I WON'T BE SUPPORTING PROOF OF VACCINATION. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE CALL THE VOTES? COUNCILLOR MORSE? THANKS. I MEAN, REALLY EXTENSIVE COMMENTS AT OUR LAST GPC MEETING. YOU KNOW, LET THOSE COMMENTS STAND AND SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE VALUABLE AT 10:30 AT NIGHT TO SIT AND MAKE ANOTHER SIMILAR SPEECH REHASHING ALL THE SAME POINTS. GENERALLY, MY PERSPECTIVE ON THIS ISSUE HAS NOT CHANGED. I HAVE CERTAINLY BEEN GIVEN PAUSE BY ALL OF THE LETTERS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN FROM RESIDENTS FOR AND AGAINST. I DO SEE HOW MUCH OF A STRUGGLE THIS IS FOR PEOPLE. I SYMPATHIZE WITH MY COLLEAGUES FOR WHOM THIS IS A STRUGGLE. I KNOW THAT THIS IS A DEEPLY PERSONAL ISSUE, AND CERTAINLY IT DOES GIVE ME A LOT OF PAUSE TO BE CREATING A POLICY, WHICH MEANS THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE MAY NOT HAVE THE SAME KIND OF ACCESS. IT'S A POLICY THAT IS BASED ON PEOPLE'S CHOICE, WHICH IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN ANY KIND OF OPPRESSION OR POLICY OR DISCRIMINATION BASED ON THINGS THAT PEOPLE CAN'T CHOOSE. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION AND REPEATEDLY DURING DEBATES ON THIS BETWEEN CITIZENS. IT JUST KEEPS COMING UP THAT THE OPPRESSION IS SIMILAR TO THINGS THAT PEOPLE CAN'T CHOOSE, AND IT'S JUST A NEED TO SAY THAT IT IS NOT A COMPARABLE THING AND IT IS JUST DEEPLY CONCERNING TO ME AND UPSETTING TO ME THAT A PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURE WHICH HAS PREVIOUSLY IN MY LIFETIME BEEN CELEBRATED, I MEAN, MY BEST FRIEND'S MOM WAS A PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE WHEN I WAS A KID. JUST THE IDEA THAT THE VACCINATION COULD BE SEEN AS SOMETHING BAD OR SOMETHING TO BE AVOIDED OR WORRIED ABOUT. IT'S JUST SO UPSETTING TO ME THAT THAT'S THE CASE NOW. I ALWAYS I WAS KIND OF RAISED TO THINK THAT THINGS LIKE VACCINATION ARE A PUBLIC HEALTH MIRACLE. I MEAN, PEOPLE WHEN THE POLIO VACCINE FIRST CAME ABOUT. I MEAN, PEOPLE WERE LINING UP, PEOPLE ARE CELEBRATING. I MEAN, THE IDEA OF NOT HAVING TO SEE YOUR CHILDREN CRIPPLED AND KILLED BY THIS HIDEOUS ILLNESS, IT WAS JUST LIKE A MIRACLE HAD BEEN WORKED BY SCIENCE. AND, YOU KNOW, THINGS HAVE GOTTEN SO DEEPLY CONVOLUTED. AND THE PANDEMIC HAS PUT SO MUCH PRESSURE ON PEOPLE, AND IT IS REALLY, REALLY UPSETTING TO SEE. PEOPLE FEELING DIVIDED BY THIS ISSUE. IT IS REALLY UPSETTING. I DON'T WANT TO BE A PERSON WHO'S SEEN AS SOWING DIVISION. I THINK THAT MAKING DECISIONS BASED ON EVIDENCE AND SCIENCE, AS I SAID AT THE LAST MEETING, IS SOMETHING THAT I AM JUST DEEPLY COMMITTED TO AND I CONTINUE TO BE DEEPLY COMMITTED TO AND I THINK IS THE BEST WAY TO DO IT, THE BEST WAY TO MAKE DECISIONS. SO, YEAH, THIS IS DIFFICULT IN SOME WAYS, BUT IT'S NEVER CROSSED MY MIND THAT I WOULD DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I'VE ALREADY STATED I WOULD SUPPORT, AND THAT IS TO SUPPORT THIS POLICY, TO SUPPORT THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE IN SUPPORT OF IT. WE'RE IN A REALLY DIFFICULT AND KIND OF UNPRECEDENTED MOMENT IN OUR LIFETIMES. I WANT TO SEE THIS PANDEMIC BEHIND US AS MUCH AS ANYBODY ELSE. THERE ISN'T A SINGLE PERSON IN THIS ROOM THAT CHOSE TO BE HERE IN THIS SITUATION. NOBODY ON THIS PLANET WANTED TO BE HERE, AND YET WE ARE. AND IT'S BEEN DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT WAYS. WE'VE HEARD FROM A LOT OF RESIDENTS ABOUT THAT ON BOTH SIDES. RESIDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN DEEPLY AND PERSONALLY AFFECTED IN WAYS THAT I [03:20:02] CAN'T UNDERSTAND. I'VE BEEN VERY LUCKY, AND SOME PEOPLE HAVE NOT HAD THAT KIND OF LUCK, AND I CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE, SO I REALLY WANT TO THANK RESIDENTS WHO WROTE TO US. WE'VE HEARD SO MANY THINGS. I MEAN, AT THIS POINT, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO RESPOND TO ALL THE EMAILS. WE'RE UP OVER THREE HUNDRED NOW. BUT I'VE TRIED TO READ MOST OF THEM OR AT LEAST READ THE SUBJECT MATTER OF MOST OF THEM AND TRY AND GET AN IDEA OF WHAT'S IN THERE. AND THE RESIDENTS WHO TOOK THE TIME TO PRESENT TONIGHT ON BOTH SIDES REALLY APPRECIATE YOU PARTICIPATING IN THE DISCUSSION. IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE RESIDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE DISCUSSION REACHING OUT TO US, HELPING US MAKE DECISIONS. I APPRECIATE IT IMMENSELY WHEN PEOPLE TAKE THE TIME TO DO THAT. SO THANK YOU. I'LL LEAVE MY COMMENTS THERE. IT'S BEEN A TOUGH WEEK FOR EVERYONE, IT'S CERTAINLY BEEN A TOUGH WEEK FOR ME AND I AM ULTIMATELY IN FAVOR OF THE POLICY AS WRITTEN AS I WAS LAST WEEK, AND I'LL VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS. YEAH, AND THAT'S THE CRUX FOR ME IS THAT I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THE POLICY AS WRITTEN AND SO THAT PUTS ME IN A PRETTY CHALLENGING POSITION WITH THIS ONE, WE'RE REALLY FORCED WITH KIDS. I, YOU KNOW, AFTER THE DISCUSSION AND AFTER WEEKS, I THOUGHT WE'D BE ABLE TO KIND OF COME TOGETHER AND COME TO SOME, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST MAKE WHAT'S IN THAT PUBLIC POLICY EXPLICIT. YOU KNOW, WE ALL KNOW THAT IT'S 12 PLUS THAT'S THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT COULD GET THE VACCINE RIGHT NOW. THAT'S FOLLOWING EXACTLY THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDERS, NOT DEVIATING FROM THEM IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. YOU KNOW, ADMINISTRATION TALKED ABOUT IT ALREADY EXPIRING WHEN THE CURRENT PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER DOES. I'M AT LEAST GLAD THAT THAT'S IN THEIR. I GUESS AT THE END OF THE DAY AFTER THIS DISCUSSION, I GET THINKING ABOUT ALL THE EMAILS WE READ. MANY I AGREED WITH ON BOTH SIDES. LIKE THIS HAS BEEN SAID, THIS IS A LOSE-LOSE SITUATION FOR I THINK EVERYBODY. EITHER WE ARE BARRING PEOPLE FROM OUR FACILITIES AND BECAUSE OF OUR VACCINATION STATUS AND A CHOICE THAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE MADE, OR WE'RE REDUCING CAPACITY AND LIMITING IT. I GUESS WHEN IT CAME TO TUESDAY, MY FIRST IMPULSE AFTER THE MEETING WAS TO REACH OUT TO USER GROUPS AND HEAR HOW THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDERS WERE GOING WITH THEM AND HOW INDIVIDUALIZED PLANS WERE PROCEEDING AND. AT THAT POINT, THAT'S WHAT STARTED TO SHIFT ME. I HEARD FROM THE THE SKI CLUB THAT THAT WASN'T AN IDEAL SITUATION, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW SOME OF WHAT WE HEARD FROM MR. MORTON HERE TODAY, IT'S ECHOED IN MINOR HOCKEY. I DON'T WANT TO PUT MY HAND UP FOR THIS ONE. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S THE DECISION THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE AS A COUNCIL. AND I CERTAINLY HOPE POLITICS CAN EASE AT SOME POINT IN OUR SOCIETY AND MAYBE WE CAN COMPROMISE A BIT. I SEE THAT COMPROMISE ONLY HAS TO HAPPEN FROM ONE SIDE AND I GUESS I GOT TO BE THAT GUY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? COUNCILLOR SILVERIO? THANK YOU, YOUR WORSHIP. AS EVERYONE STATED, THIS HAS BEEN A VERY STRESSFUL MONTHS AND BEING IN THE COUNCIL. I JUST HOPE THAT WHATEVER THE RESULT FOR THIS TONIGHT VOTE, I HOPE THAT WE CAN MOVE ON. I KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY. I WILL BE VOTING IN WHAT I KNOW THAT IN MY MORALE THAT I KNOW THAT IS RIGHT. I KNOW THAT WHETHER YOU'RE VACCINATED AND VACCINATED, I KNOW THAT WE SHOULD KEEP THE RESPECT. WE SHOULD KEEP THE INCLUSIVENESS. WE SHOULD BE FAIR TO EVERYBODY. I KNOW WE RECEIVE A LOT OF EMAILS AND EVEN THE HURTFUL EMAILS, SPECIFICALLY WHOEVER STOOD UP IN THE LAST GPC ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN A VERY, VERY DIVIDED COMMUNITY RIGHT NOW. AND I HOPE THAT ONCE WE DECIDE TONIGHT, I HOPE THAT HEALING WILL START AND LET'S [03:25:05] TRY TO WORK ON THINGS. THIS ALLOWED EVEN JUST IN MY PERSONAL REALM OF FRIENDS, RELATIVES, IT AFFECTED ME IN TERMS OF RELATIONSHIP, BUT JUST BECAUSE OF THIS TOPIC, AND I JUST HOPE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE KEEP THE RESPECT TO EACH AND EVERY ONE. THAT'S MY TWO CENTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? UM, FOR MYSELF, YEAH, FIRST OFF, I'D LIKE TO THANK RESIDENTS FOR ALL THEIR EMAILS. REST ASSURED, I'D READ ALL THREE HUNDRED PLUS EMAILS THIS WEEK AND DOZENS RAISED A RANGE OF POINTS TO CONSIDER. FOR EVERYTHING THAT COMES TO COUNCIL I ALWAYS BREAK IT DOWN FOR MYSELF. WHAT AM I BEING ASKED TO VOTE ON? AND ONCE I'M CLEAR ON THAT, I HAVE TO ASK WHAT ARE THE POLICY PRINCIPLES THAT I'M BASING MY DECISION ON. FOR ME, TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION ISN'T ABOUT WHETHER COVID EXISTS OR THE EFFICACY OF THE VACCINE. IT'S ABOUT THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER, WHICH SETS THE CAPACITY LIMITS FOR GATHERINGS AND WHICH CLAUSE DOES THE CITY WANT TO ADHERE TO? THE CITY ISN'T ABOVE THE LAW. JUST LIKE BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS, THE CITY MUST ADHERE TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER. SO TONIGHT WE CAN CHOOSE TO NOT IMPLEMENT THE PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY AND STAY AT OUR CURRENT MAXIMUMS OF ABOUT TWENTY FIVE IN THE FACILITIES. WE CAN IMPLEMENT THE PROOF OF VACCINE POLICY AND INCREASE OUR CAPACITY AT PUBLIC SWIMS, PUBLIC SKATES, THE LIBRARY AND WE'LL HAVE CAPACITY CLOSER TO OUR PRE-PANDEMIC LEVELS. OR WE CAN CHOOSE TO NOT REQUIRE PROOF OF VACCINE AND SUBMIT THOSE INDIVIDUAL INCREASED MITIGATION PLANS AND HAVE THE CPHO DO A RISK ASSESSMENT OF EACH OF OUR ACTIVITIES AND THEN POTENTIALLY ARRIVE AT NUMBERS AROUND THE THIRTY TO THIRTY FIVE MARK. SO I'M DECIDING BETWEEN THE OPTIONS, THE CORE PRINCIPLES FOR ME WERE ABOUT MAXIMIZING RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESIDENTS THIS YEAR AND FOCUSING ON THE SAFETY AND HEALTH OF EMPLOYEES AND THOSE WHO ARE VISITING OUR FACILITIES. LAST YEAR AND OVER THIS PAST WEEK, I HEARD FROM MANY FRUSTRATED PARENTS AND FAMILIES THAT WERE UPSET THAT THEY COULD NEVER GET INTO A FAMILY OR PUBLIC SWIM OR SKATE BECAUSE THEIR CAPACITY WAS LIMITED. IF YOU WEREN'T ON THE COMPUTER RIGHT AWAY AND YOU WERE LIKELY TO UNLIKELY TO GET IN, AND EVEN IF YOU'RE QUICK, IT WAS TOUGH TO GET IN BECAUSE WHEN YOU BREAK IT DOWN, CAPACITY OF 20-25 PEOPLE, YOU END UP WITH ONLY FIVE OR SIX FAMILIES PER SLOT. SO THIS WINTER, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO INCREASE OUR CAPACITY FOR OUR PROGRAMS. SINCE OUR LAST MEETING, WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD AN INCREASE IN OUR VACCINATION RATE HERE IN YELLOWKNIFE. 88 PERCENT OF YELLOWKNIFE RESIDENTS 12 AND UP ARE EITHER PARTIALLY OR FULLY VACCINATED, WITH 12 PERCENT WHO ARE UNVACCINATED. SO WE'D LIMIT RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR RESIDENTS FOR ANOTHER YEAR IF WE DON'T PROCEED WITH THE POLICY. I KNOW THIS IS DIFFICULT FOR SOME RESIDENTS AS THEY'RE NOT COMFORTABLE GETTING VACCINES OR THIS VACCINE YET. HOWEVER, PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY MAKING IS ABOUT MAKING A DECISION ABOUT WHAT'S BENEFICIAL FOR THE SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. AND I BELIEVE BY PUTTING THE PROOF OF VACCINE PROGRAM IN PLACE, WE'RE ADDRESSING THE HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AND INCREASING RECREATION OPTIONS FOR AS MANY RESIDENTS AS POSSIBLE. SO I AM SUPPORTIVE OF IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY, AND I DO WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO THANK MY COUNCIL COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR DIVERSE VIEWS ON THIS SUBJECT. THIS HASN'T HAD UNANIMOUS SUPPORT IN THE COMMUNITY AND IS THE SAME AS THE COUNCIL TABLE TONIGHT. FOR ME, I DO THINK THAT'S A SIGN OF DEMOCRACY, THOUGH, IS THAT WE COME TOGETHER. WE RESPECTFULLY PRESENT DIFFERENT VIEWS. IF WE ALWAYS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY, WHY HAVE NINE OF US SITTING AROUND THE TABLE? WE COULD SAVE THE WAGES OF EIGHT AND JUST HAVE ONE ELECTED OFFICIAL. SO IT WAS A LOT OF FEEDBACK TO TO READ AND WADE THROUGH, AND IT WAS ON TOP OF YOUR FULL TIME JOB. SO I DO WANT TO TAKE THE MOMENT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR ALL OF THEIR QUESTIONS AND THOUGHTS ON THIS AND WAYS TO TRY TO MAKE IT AS OPEN AND INCLUSIVE TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. WITH THAT, I WILL CALL THE VOTES, AND THAT IS FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WITH THE CLAUSE. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE POLICY WITH THE CLAUSE ABOUT MY APOLOGIES. WITH A CLAUSE ABOUT THE POLICY TO RESCIND SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. OPPOSED. SO, COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS, WERE YOU IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED? IN FAVOR. LET ME CALL THE VOTE AGAIN, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OK. AND OPPOSED? SO THAT CARRIES WITH THE COUNCILLOR SMITH, SILVERIO, KONGE AND PAYNE OPPOSED. [03:30:02] SO WITH THAT, THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS NEW BUSINESS, SO THERE IS NO NEW BUSINESS FOR THE AGENDA. IS THERE ANY NEW BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR? ENACTMENT OF BYLAWS, BYLAW NUMBER 5045 IS A BYLAW TO REPEAL AND REPLACE ZONING [Items 23 & 24] BYLAW NUMBER 4404 AS AMENDED IS PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING COUNCILLOR MORGAN? I MOVE FIRST READING OF BYLAW NUMBER 5045. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECONDER? COUNCILLOR MORSE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. IN FAVOR, COUNCILLOR MUFANDAEDZA? YEAH. OK. THAT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THERE WAS NO DEFERRED BUSINESS AND THERE WERE NO TABLED ITEMS FOR THE AGENDA. IS THERE ANY DEFERRED BUSINESS OR ARE THERE ANY TABLED ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR? THERE WAS NO OLD BUSINESS FOR THE AGENDA, IS THERE ANY OLD BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR? THERE WERE NO NOTICES OF MOTION FOR THE AGENDA. ARE THERE ANY NOTICES OF MOTION FROM THE FLOOR? THERE WERE NO DELEGATIONS PERTAINING TO ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. THERE WERE NO ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRIES FOR THE AGENDA. ARE THERE ANY ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRIES FROM THE FLOOR? WITH THAT, IF I CAN GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN? MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SMITH, SECOND VIC COUNCILLOR KONGE. ANYBODY OPPOSED? SEEING NONE, WE CAN BE ADJOURNED. SEE EVERYBODY LATER ON. HAVE A GREAT NIGHT, EVERYBODY. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.